On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > > > > > > > It starts a transaction, failes the first command and goes into the > > > > > > > error has occurred in this transaction state. Seems like reasonable > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > Select command don't start transaction - it is not good > > > > > > > > > > I think you need more justification than "it is not good." If I do a > > > > > sequence of select statements in autocommit=false, I'd expect the same > > > > > consistancy as if I'd done > > > > > begin; > > > > > select ...; > > > > > select ...; > > > > > > > > > Ok.You start transaction explicit and this is ok. > > > > But simple SELECT don't start transaction. > > > > > > Actually someone post a bit from Date's book that implies it does. > > > And, that's still not an justification, it's just a restating of same > > > position. I don't see any reason why the two should be different from > > > a data consistency standpoint, there might be one, but you haven't > > > given any reasons. > > > > What if it's a select for update? IF that failed because of a timout on a > > lock, shouldn't the transaction fail? Or a select into? Either of those > > should make a transaction fail, and they're just selects. > > Yes, but I think it should still work the same as if it had failed in an > explicit transaction if autocommit is false (or was that directed at > someone else).
Sorry, I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the guy who was saying that selects shouldn't start a transaction. Should have mentioned that. :-) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
