On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:34 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Yeah, I agree that this downside is real. I think our only protection > against that is to say "don't do that". Like any other tool, it has > upsides and downsides; we shouldn't keep it away from users only because > they might misuse it.
I have a hard time arguing against that given that EDB has this thing in our bag of tricks, but if it weren't for that I'd be fighting against this tooth and nail. Behavior-changing GUCs suuuuck.
This looks like repeating the autocommit mistakes of the past.
And based on that experience wouldn't the replacement approach be to do this client side? If libpq had a library option to wrap every statement in a subtransaction by adding begin/end then this problem would be completely sidestepped.
