Author berker.peksag
Recipients Big Stone, berker.peksag, callidomus, fschulze, ghaering, jaraco, malin, ned.deily, palaviv, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, socketpair, xiang.zhang
Date 2017-01-23.14:10:53
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> 1. Should we add the VACUUM with a explicit commit? Maybe there should
> be an implicit commit before VACUUM?

VACUUM is often an expensive operation so I think people should need to explicitly handle it anyway.

> 2. Should a SELECT start a transaction? I think it should according to
> PEP 249. There is a open issue on the case (#9924). Should we just
> change this on this patch?

Let's discuss that in issue 9924 :) Last time I look at it there was some backward compatibility concern so we might able to fix it only in 3.7.
Date User Action Args
2017-01-23 14:10:53berker.peksagsetrecipients: + berker.peksag, ghaering, jaraco, ned.deily, r.david.murray, socketpair, serhiy.storchaka, malin, xiang.zhang, palaviv, Big Stone, fschulze, callidomus
2017-01-23 14:10:53berker.peksagsetmessageid: <>
2017-01-23 14:10:53berker.peksaglinkissue28518 messages
2017-01-23 14:10:53berker.peksagcreate