No implicit transactions for named with hold cursors outside their transaction

[snaury]

Hi,

I noticed that currently named "with hold" cursors behave differently than client-side cursors in some aspects, which seem to be a little off:

• When closing withhold cursor after its creating transaction is committed another transaction is implicitly started, which may unexpectedly leave connection is a long transaction
• When fetching data outside their transactions, again, an implicit transaction is started, when it seems it's not needed. Current documentation (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-declare.html) currently says that it copies rows to temporary file/memory, and it seems to me (though I'm not entirely certain) that fetch would return data as it was in a transaction where cursor was created, not how it is in another transaction.

What do you think? Should implicit transactions always be created, or is it better to fetch/close in basically autocommit mode?

[dvarrazzo]

Thank you for the observations, will think about that. I haven't designed/used the withhold cursors so I'll have to check what you say but it makes sense.

Federico is the author of the with_hold cursor: I don't think he is following a thread here. The best thing would be to explain your observations to the mailing list: Federico and others could give you better feedback than me.

[dvarrazzo]

I've added some tests and committed your patches, thank you very much.