On Fri 7 Dec 2018, 21:43 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:34 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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. >
