On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-08-03 12:16 GMT+02:00 Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>: >> >> Should changing the value from OFF to ON automatically either commit or >> rollback transaction in progress? >> >> >> FWIW, running set autocommit through ecpg commits the ongoing transaction >> when autocommit is set to ON from OFF. Should such behaviour be implemented >> for \set AUTOCOMMIT ON as well? > > > 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 - ROLLBACK can be unfriendly surprising.
> What about raising warning if > some transaction is open? >
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.
Warnings enforce the user do some decision - I don't think so we can do this decision well.
