Re: [HACKERS] problem with new autocommit config parameter - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Curt Sampson
Subject Re: [HACKERS] problem with new autocommit config parameter
Date
Msg-id Pine.NEB.4.44.0209111054100.23252-100000@angelic.cynic.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] problem with new autocommit config parameter and  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] problem with new autocommit config parameter
List pgsql-jdbc
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Do we want to say "With autocommit off, SET will be in it's own
> transaction if it appears before any non-SET command", and "SETs are
> rolled back except if autocommit off and they appear before any
> non-SET"?

Not really, I don't think.

But I'm starting to wonder if we should re-think all SET commands being
rolled back if a transaction fails. Some don't seem to make sense, such
as having SET AUTOCOMMIT or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION roll back.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Curt Sampson
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] problem with new autocommit config parameter
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] problem with new autocommit config parameter