On Tuesday 10 September 2002 09:55 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That seems messy. What you are saying is that if autocommit is off, > > then in: > > > > SET x=1; > > UPDATE ... > > SET y=2; > > ROLLBACK; > > > > that the x=1 doesn't get rolled back bu the y=2 does? > > Yes, if you weren't in a transaction at the start. > > > I can't see any good logic for that. > > How about "the SQL spec requires it"? Date seems to think it does, > at least for some variables (of course we have lots of variables > that are not in the spec). > > I can't find anything very clear in the SQL92 or SQL99 documents, > and I'm not at home at the moment to look at my copy of Date, but > if Curt's reading is correct then we have spec precedent for acting > this way.
I know what Oracle do (default mode autocommit off except JDBC) : only DML and DDL command start transaction and DDL command end transaction. There is another problem: if select start transaction why error - I will continue transaction. Why invalid command start transaction ? regards haris peco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
