On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-08-04 15:37 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>: >> >> > 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 > Not, when user has specifically requested for autocommit mode as 'on'. I think here what would be more meaningful is that after "Set AutoCommit On", when the first command is committed, it should commit previous non-pending committed commands as well. >> >> 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. > Sure, but that doesn't give us the license for being inconsistent in behaviour across different clients. > Warnings enforce the user do some decision > They could be annoying as well, especially if that happens in scripts. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
