On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > > > It starts a transaction, failes the first command and goes into the
> > > > > error has occurred in this transaction state. Seems like reasonable
> > > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Select command don't start transaction - it is not good
> > >
> > > I think you need more justification than "it is not good." If I do a
> > > sequence of select statements in autocommit=false, I'd expect the same
> > > consistancy as if I'd done
> > > begin;
> > > select ...;
> > > select ...;
> > >
> > Ok.You start transaction explicit and this is ok.
> > But simple SELECT don't start transaction.
>
> Actually someone post a bit from Date's book that implies it does.
> And, that's still not an justification, it's just a restating of same
> position. I don't see any reason why the two should be different from
> a data consistency standpoint, there might be one, but you haven't
> given any reasons.
What if it's a select for update? IF that failed because of a timout on a
lock, shouldn't the transaction fail? Or a select into? Either of those
should make a transaction fail, and they're just selects.
