On Tuesday 10 September 2002 09:55 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That seems messy. What you are saying is that if autocommit is off,
> > then in:
> >
> > SET x=1;
> > UPDATE ...
> > SET y=2;
> > ROLLBACK;
> >
> > that the x=1 doesn't get rolle
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That seems messy. What you are saying is that if autocommit is off,
> then in:
> SET x=1;
> UPDATE ...
> SET y=2;
> ROLLBACK;
> that the x=1 doesn't get rolled back bu the y=2 does?
Yes, if you weren't in a transaction at the
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does anyone see any cases where it's important for SET to start
>> a transaction? (Of course, if you are already *in* a transaction,
>> the SET will be part of that transaction. The question is whether
>> we want SET to trigger an im
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Probably the driver should be changed for 7.3 just to use the server's
> SET AUTOCOMMIT functionality
That should happen eventually, IMHO, but I am not going to tell the JDBC
developers that they must make it happen for 7.3. They've already got a
pi
On Saturday 07 September 2002 02:55 am, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Barry Lind wrote:
> > Haris,
> >
> > You can't use jdbc (and probably most other postgres clients) with
> > autocommit in postgresql.conf turned off.
> >
> > Hackers,
> >
> > How should client interfaces handle this new autocommit feat
