On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:54:08PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
> > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:57:59PM -0400, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
> > >> I find that some clients (DBVisualizer for one) do exactly that -
> > >> execute the COMMIT;BEGIN sequence, and leaves idle
> > >> transactions on a consistent basis.
> >
> > > Almost all the things I've see that set the autocommit behaviour will
> > > also do this. I suspect it's a pretty common approach.
> >
> > Yeah. We agreed in principle awhile back to "fix" this on the backend
> > side by postponing the actual transaction start until the first command
> > after BEGIN. I looked at this just before 7.4 feature freeze, but
> > decided it wasn't quite trivial and I hadn't time to make it happen.
> > No one's gone back to work on it during the 7.5 cycle either.
> >
> > Right now I'm not wanting to touch that code since both Alvaro and the
> > 2PC guy have open patches against it...
Actually, my patch is waiting for you to review it ;-) On the other
hand, since I'm already touching that code, maybe I can include it in my
patch. Or would you prefer to keep those things separate?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
You liked Linux a lot when he was just the gawky kid from down the block
mowing your lawn or shoveling the snow. But now that he wants to date
your daughter, you're not so sure he measures up. (Larry Greenemeier)
