Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but > > > > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help > > > > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN > > > > to start the transaction even when autocommit is off. > > > > > > Really? To me that makes perfect sense. Logic: > > > > > > *) Only BEGIN starts a transaction > > > > I think the above item is the issue. Everything is clear with > > autocommit on. With autocommit off, COMMIT/ROLLBACK starts a > > transaction, not BEGIN. BEGIN _can_ start a transaction, but it isn't > > required: > > AFAICT, according to spec, commit/rollback does not start a transaction, > the transcation is started with the first transaction initiating statement > when there isn't a current transaction. And, most of the SQL92 commands > that start with SET fall into the category of commands that do not > initiate transactions.
OK, I am ready to say I was wrong. Most people like that behavior so let's do it. Thanks for listening to me. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
