X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D20329E2C for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:44:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92588-05 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:44:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ssmcmail.nems.noaa.gov (ssmcmail.nems.noaa.gov [205.156.4.221]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97525329DF7 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:44:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from noaa.gov ([140.90.8.70]) by ssmcmail.nems.noaa.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id I46WXR00.TPX for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:44:15 -0400 Message-ID: <414AF83E.AFA00204@noaa.gov> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:44:14 -0400 From: Chip Gobs Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service X-Sender: "Chip Gobs" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Implicit Transactions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/117 X-Sequence-Number: 18963 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