> > > I am fine with special casing autocommit. Is that what you are > > > suggesting? > > > > I think he means: > > > > Ex: > > SET autocommit TO off; > > SHOW autocommit; > > ROLLBACK; > > # warning about being outside of a transaction > > BEGIN; > > SET autocommit TO on; > > SHOW autocommit; # shows on > > ROLLBACK; > > SHOW autocommit; # shows off > > > > Only have the SET's in a transaction/rollback-able if they're made > > inside of a transaction, otherwise leave them as atomic changes. -sc > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN > to start the transaction even when autocommit is off.
Really? To me that makes perfect sense. Logic: *) Only BEGIN starts a transaction *) Database or session tunables are adjusted with SET *) Only things that happen inside of a transaction are rollback-able *) SET operations that happen outside of a transaction are atomic changes that aren't subject to being rolled back What about that doesn't make sense? Having SET begin a transaction seems like a gross violation of POLS and likely to contradict the spec and cause problems with many applications. -sc -- Sean Chittenden ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
