Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
No implicit transactions for named with hold cursors outside their transaction #7
I noticed that currently named "with hold" cursors behave differently than client-side cursors in some aspects, which seem to be a little off:
What do you think? Should implicit transactions always be created, or is it better to fetch/close in basically autocommit mode?
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.