> > > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but
> > > > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help
> > > > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN
> > > > to start the transaction even when autocommit is off.
> > >
> > > Really? To me that makes perfect sense. Logic:
> > >
> > > *) Only BEGIN starts a transaction
> >
> > I think the above item is the issue. Everything is clear with
> > autocommit on. With autocommit off, COMMIT/ROLLBACK starts a
> > transaction, not BEGIN. BEGIN _can_ start a transaction, but it isn't
> > required:
>
> AFAICT, according to spec, commit/rollback does not start a
> transaction, the transcation is started with the first transaction
> initiating statement when there isn't a current transaction. And,
> most of the SQL92 commands that start with SET fall into the
> category of commands that do not initiate transactions.
Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new
transaction? I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
