pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedImplicit Transactions
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Implicit Transactions
@ 2004-09-17 14:44 Chip Gobs <chip.gobs@noaa.gov>
2004-09-20 12:34 ` Re: Implicit Transactions Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Chip Gobs @ 2004-09-17 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
We are porting from Informix to PostgreSQL 7.4.5 and have noticed the
following behavior.
If we try to OPEN a CURSOR for an invalid SELECT statement in ECPG, we
get an error, as expected. However, if we then
attempt to OPEN another CURSOR for a valid statement, we get an error
that says we are in a failed transaction. At that point, no statement
will succeed. The only way we have found to get out of this state is
to ROLLBACK explicitly.
We are not using explicit transactions. My understanding is that PG
should be rolling back failed statements when we are not in an
explicit transaction.
Do we have an incorrect setting, a misunderstanding of how it is
supposed to work, or a bug? Could anyone enlighten me?
Thanks,
Chip
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Implicit Transactions
2004-09-17 14:44 Implicit Transactions Chip Gobs <chip.gobs@noaa.gov>
@ 2004-09-20 12:34 ` Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2004-09-20 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chip Gobs <chip.gobs@noaa.gov>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
Chip Gobs wrote:
>
> We are porting from Informix to PostgreSQL 7.4.5 and have noticed the
> following behavior.
>
> If we try to OPEN a CURSOR for an invalid SELECT statement in ECPG, we
> get an error, as expected. However, if we then
> attempt to OPEN another CURSOR for a valid statement, we get an error
> that says we are in a failed transaction. At that point, no statement
> will succeed. The only way we have found to get out of this state is
> to ROLLBACK explicitly.
>
> We are not using explicit transactions. My understanding is that PG
> should be rolling back failed statements when we are not in an
> explicit transaction.
>
> Do we have an incorrect setting, a misunderstanding of how it is
> supposed to work, or a bug? Could anyone enlighten me?
ecpg defaults to open transaction by default. There is a command to
change that in ecpg or during compile I think.
--
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, Pennsylvania 19073
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-20 12:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-17 14:44 Implicit Transactions Chip Gobs <chip.gobs@noaa.gov>
2004-09-20 12:34 ` Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox