Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The issue I have is that every interface that relies on libpq is going
> > to have to code it itself. Is that OK?
>
> So? Most interfaces have to adhere to their own notions of transaction
> semantics and control API anyway. libpq should stay out of their way
> rather than try to be helpful. I see this as not different from the
> lesson we learned that doing it in the backend isn't the right place.
I know Perl and jdbc do, but things like c++ and libpgeasy don't really
have a specification to follow. With the ability to check the
transaction status, it might now be easy enough to do autocommit that
having it happen in every interfaces will be ok.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073