Tom Lane wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Anyway should 'set autocommit to off;commit' cause > > a warning or an error in the first place ? > > IIRC, the SET does *not* start a transaction, Yes but doesn't autocommit-off mode mean that it implicitly begins a transaction in suitable places ? For example, 'set autocommit to off; declare .. cursor ..' works though it never work without BEGIN under autocommit-on mode. > so the COMMIT should raise > a warning. regards, Hiroshi Inoue http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
- [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit off mode Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit off mo... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit of... D'Arcy J.M. Cain
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit of... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommi... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autoc... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior un... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavio... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavio... Hiroshi Inoue
- [HACKERS] autocommit off mo... Dave Cramer
- Re: [HACKERS] autocommit of... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] autocommit of... Dave Cramer
- Re: [HACKERS] autocommit of... Dave Cramer
- Re: [HACKERS] autocommit of... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit off mo... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit off mo... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] A bad behavior under autocommit off mo... Barry Lind