Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The issue I have is that every interface that relies on libpq is going
> > to have to code it itself. Is that OK?
>
> So? Most interfaces have to adhere to their own notions of transaction
> semantics and control API anyway. libpq
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue I have is that every interface that relies on libpq is going
> to have to code it itself. Is that OK?
So? Most interfaces have to adhere to their own notions of transaction
semantics and control API anyway. libpq should stay out of their way
The issue I have is that every interface that relies on libpq is going
to have to code it itself. Is that OK?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there a reason autocommit is implemented i
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a reason autocommit is implemented in psql and not in libpq via
> a C function call?
One reason is that PQexec accepts multiple-query strings (possibly with
embedded BEGIN/END), so it's not immediately obvious what the semantics
ought to be. We
Is there a reason autocommit is implemented in psql and not in libpq via
a C function call?
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I see autocommit as implemented only in psql, not in libpq. Is that
> what we want to do for 7.4?
--
Hello Bruce,
Tuesday, July 22, 2003, 11:26:32 PM, you wrote:
BM> I see autocommit as implemented only in psql, not in libpq. Is that
BM> what we want to do for 7.4?
Autocommit with libpq could be a good idea for web applications, especially
when not so expirienced users connect from a scriptin
