Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
drive-by: could you include the Postgres documentation link in this comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you mean the comment in the source code or the comment of the commit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the source code. If someone wonders why this is here and why Postgres requires this (and whether other DBs might also require it for the same reason), it's better if they can see it right there in the code rather than have to dig into Git history.
I would perhaps propose the following phrasing:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done meanwhile ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd suggest to set it to
false
only if it was not explicitly set totrue
by connection properties configuration. Otherwise, it won't be possible to override and it can be confusing for users (since we already provide a way to do that withDataSourceConfiguration
).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So we would store the
config
parameter passed inwithDataSourceConfiguration
? What would be the path to retrieve this parameter from it?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, I guess it won't be so easy to check without additional work (please, correct me if I'm wrong).
My main concern is the following - if we provide a way to configure IO in some way, we don't have to silently override it without taking into account the user config options if they were set explicitly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I have an idea on how the parameter can be specified, it will be additional work yes, but I can spend some reasonable time on it.
However, I am inclined to invoke YAGNI principle: once this parameter is needed (and I can't determine how someone would need autocommit while reading), the way to parameterize it and to take it into account in
JdbcIO
will appear more clearly.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, since we have an agreement in general, let's keep this behaviour but, please, add a log message that
autoCommit
was forced totrue
and, as I mentioned before, create PR from a feature branch. Thanks!