Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al
Date
Msg-id 4066.1035238715@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>> ... I think we
>>> should just do an automatic COMMIT if it is the first statement of a
>>> transaction, and if not, throw the same error we used to throw.  We are
>>> performing autocommit for SET at the start of a transaction now anyway,
>>> so it isn't totally strange to do it for TRUNCATE, etc. too.
>> 
>> We can go with the auto-COMMIT idea for statements that are invoked at
>> the outer interactive level,

What I just committed uses your idea of auto-committing TRUNCATE et al,
but now that I review the thread I think that everyone else thought that
that was a dangerous idea.  How do you feel about simply throwing an error
in autocommit-off mode, instead?  (At least it's a localized change now)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: CVS split problems
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al