Andreas,
From the JDBC side it really doesn't make that much difference. The
JDBC code needs to support both ways of doing it (explicit begin/commits
for 7.2 and earlier servers, and set autocommit for 7.3 servers), so
however it ends up for 7.4 it shouldn't be too much work to adopt. As
Tom
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Somehow I did not see that conclusion made.
> I thought, at least for JDBC, it is already successfully used ?
Barry, at least, seemed to be happy with removing it, given the planned
protocol change to report current transaction state after
> Also, per other discussions, we are removing backend autocommit support
> in 7.4. It was the wrong way to do it.
Somehow I did not see that conclusion made.
I thought, at least for JDBC, it is already successfully used ?
I think the backend autocommit is useful. Maybe only the
installation/da
Olleg Samojlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I can remember, already, when autocommit off transaction begin with
> first DML or DDL command. May be better change client to use autocommit
> off mode?
We've been waiting for those clients to get fixed for a long while.
Waiting for them to adopt
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only
a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not
start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already
true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at BEGIN time, but
only whe
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only
>> a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not
>> start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already
>> tr
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only
> a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not
> start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already
> true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doug McNaught wrote:
>> Maybe clock_time() and statement_time(), with transaction_time() an
>> alias for now() (if that's seemed necessary)?
I could go with that ...
> We already have CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. Would CLOCK_TIMESTAMP,
> TRANSACTION_TIMESTAMP, a
Doug McNaught wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Accordingly, it's a bad idea to invent now('clock') and make it the
> > same function as the other flavors. We could get away with making
> > now('transaction') and now('statement') but the argument for this
> > was consistenc
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:13:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The other thing that could be thought about here is when to freeze the
> value of now(). Currently now() is frozen when BEGIN is received.
> We could keep doing that, but it seems to me it would make more sense
> to freeze now() when the
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only
> a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not
> start until the first subsequent command is received.
[snip]
> In a very real sense, the transaction snapshot defines "wh
11 matches
Mail list logo
