2016-08-04 15:37 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > 2016-08-03 12:16 GMT+02:00 Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> Should changing the value from OFF to ON automatically either commit or > >> rollback transaction in progress? > >> > >> > >> FWIW, running set autocommit through ecpg commits the ongoing > transaction > >> when autocommit is set to ON from OFF. Should such behaviour be > implemented > >> for \set AUTOCOMMIT ON as well? > > > > > > I dislike automatic commit or rollback here. > > > > What problem you see with it, if we do so and may be mention the same > in docs as well. Anyway, I think we should make the behaviour of both > ecpg and psql same. >
Implicit COMMIT can be dangerous - ROLLBACK can be unfriendly surprising. > > What about raising warning if > > some transaction is open? > > > > Not sure what benefit we will get by raising warning. I think it is > better to choose one behaviour (automatic commit or leave the > transaction open as is currently being done in psql) and make it > consistent across all clients. > I am not sure about value of ecpg for this case. It is used by 0.0001% users. Probably nobody in Czech Republic knows this client. Warnings enforce the user do some decision - I don't think so we can do this decision well. Regards Pavel > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
