Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1K2VB-ZDOC1QTXCKMQ8Q_GCA1=5yXz71eUM=GUvv5BxHQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON  (Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2016-08-04 15:37 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > I dislike automatic commit or rollback here.
>> >
>>
>> What problem you see with it, if we do so and may be mention the same
>> in docs as well.  Anyway, I think we should make the behaviour of both
>> ecpg and psql same.
>
>
> Implicit COMMIT can be dangerous
>

Not, when user has specifically requested for autocommit mode as 'on'.
I think here what would be more meaningful is that after "Set
AutoCommit On", when the first command is committed, it should commit
previous non-pending committed commands as well.

>>
>> Not sure what benefit we will get by raising warning.  I think it is
>> better to choose one behaviour (automatic commit or leave the
>> transaction open as is currently being done in psql) and make it
>> consistent across all clients.
>
>
> I am not sure about value of ecpg for this case. It is used by 0.0001%
> users. Probably nobody in Czech Republic knows this client.
>

Sure, but that doesn't give us the license for being inconsistent in
behaviour across different clients.

> Warnings enforce the user do some decision
>

They could be annoying as well, especially if that happens in scripts.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: Heap WARM Tuples - Design Draft
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON