Just for information, PG current behavior,
"\set AUTOCOMMIT OFF" implicitly does/open "BEGIN;" block So, "\set AUTOCOMMIT ON" has no effect once "\set AUTOCOMMIT OFF" is issued until "END;" or "COMMIT;" or "ROLLBACK;" however, I think if exit session release the transactions then change session should also release the transactions Thanks Sridhar On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Vik Fearing <v...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > On 08/08/16 17:02, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you for inputs everyone. > >> > >> The opinions on this thread can be classified into following > >> 1. Commit > >> 2. Rollback > >> 3. Error > >> 4. Warning > >> > >> As per opinion upthread, issuing implicit commit immediately after > switching > >> autocommit to ON, can be unsafe if it was not desired. While I agree > that > >> its difficult to judge users intention here, but if we were to base it > on > >> some assumption, the closest would be implicit COMMIT in my > opinion.There is > >> higher likelihood of a user being happy with issuing a commit when > setting > >> autocommit ON than a transaction being rolled back. Also there are > quite > >> some interfaces which provide this. > >> > >> As mentioned upthread, issuing a warning on switching back to autocommit > >> will not be effective inside a script. It won't allow subsequent > commands to > >> be committed as set autocommit to ON is not committed. Scripts will > have to > >> be rerun with changes which will impact user friendliness. > >> > >> While I agree that issuing an ERROR and rolling back the transaction > ranks > >> higher in safe behaviour, it is not as common (according to instances > stated > >> upthread) as immediately committing any open transaction when switching > back > >> to autocommit. > > > > I think I like the option of having psql issue an error. On the > > server side, the transaction would still be open, but the user would > > receive a psql error message and the autocommit setting would not be > > changed. So the user could type COMMIT or ROLLBACK manually and then > > retry changing the value of the setting. > > This is my preferred action. > > > Alternatively, I also think it would be sensible to issue an immediate > > COMMIT when the autocommit setting is changed from off to on. That > > was my first reaction. > > I don't care for this very much. > > > Aborting the server-side transaction - with or without notice - > > doesn't seem very reasonable. > > Agreed. > -- > Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 > http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
