[Fwd: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf]

Started by Barry Lindover 23 years ago3 messages
#1Barry Lind
barry@xythos.com

Did anything come of this discussion on whether SET initiates a
transaction or not?

In summary what is the right way to deal with setting autocommit in clients?

thanks,
--Barry

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:26:14 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu>
CC: pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>
References: <200209171425.50940.snpe@snpe.co.yu>

snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> writes:

+               // handle autocommit=false in postgresql.conf
+                if (haveMinimumServerVersion("7.3")) {
+                               ExecSQL("set autocommit to on; commit;");
+               }

The above will fill people's logs with
WARNING: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
if they don't have autocommit off.

Use
begin; set autocommit to on; commit;
instead.

I would recommend holding off on this patch altogether, actually,
until we decide whether SET will be a transaction-initiating
command or not. I would still like to persuade the hackers community
that it should not be.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

#2Bruce Momjian
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
In reply to: Barry Lind (#1)
Re: [Fwd: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false"

Barry Lind wrote:

Did anything come of this discussion on whether SET initiates a
transaction or not?

SET does not start a multi-statement transaction when autocommit is off.

In summary what is the right way to deal with setting autocommit in clients?

I guess just 'set autocommit to on' will do it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
#3snpe
snpe@snpe.co.yu
In reply to: Barry Lind (#1)
Re: [Fwd: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf]

Barry,
Never mind.
Patch with 'begin;set autocommit to on;commit' work fine for JDBC spec.

regards,
Haris Peco

Show quoted text

On Friday 11 October 2002 02:57 am, Barry Lind wrote:

Did anything come of this discussion on whether SET initiates a
transaction or not?

In summary what is the right way to deal with setting autocommit in
clients?

thanks,
--Barry

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in
postgresql.conf Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:26:14 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu>
CC: pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>
References: <200209171425.50940.snpe@snpe.co.yu>

snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> writes:

+               // handle autocommit=false in postgresql.conf
+                if (haveMinimumServerVersion("7.3")) {
+                               ExecSQL("set autocommit to on;
commit;"); +               }

The above will fill people's logs with
WARNING: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
if they don't have autocommit off.

Use
begin; set autocommit to on; commit;
instead.

I would recommend holding off on this patch altogether, actually,
until we decide whether SET will be a transaction-initiating
command or not. I would still like to persuade the hackers community
that it should not be.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html