>
> In his announcement for DBD::Ingres-0.51 Henrik says:
>
> > The DBI docs state that swtiching the value of
> $dbh->{AutoCommit} from
> > off to on should cause a $dbh->commit to be called, but setting
> > $dbh->{ing_rollback} to on will cause a $dbh->rollback to be called
> > instead.
> >
> > This is mainly usefull in situations where you normally have
> > $dbh->{AutoCommit}=1 and only in some subroutines change it to
> > $dbh->{AutoCommit}=0 using
> > local $dbh->{AutoCommit}=0;
> > to get it reverted to normal use no matter how you leave the
> > subroutine. In these cases it seems much more sensible to
> rollback any
> > uncommited transactions on resetting AutCommit than to have them
> > commited.
>
> That seems like a very valid point to me. Commits should
> always be explicit not implicit. As it stands now this is very unsafe:
>
> $dbh->{RaiseError} = 1;
> eval {
> local $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 0;
> ...
> }
>
> What to others think of this issue? (Please ignoring for the
> moment any backwards compatibility issues with changing this
> and focus on the
> principle.)
I agree on the principle.
Regards,
Jeff
