> > > > 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.
Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new transaction? I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc. -sc -- Sean Chittenden ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
