[Lazarus] Is there a way to NOT use a transaction in sqldb ?

[Joost van der Sluis]

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 17:50 -0300, Alexsander Rosa wrote:
> It's weird to *require* a COMMIT on a simple SELECT, 

That's not strange. You can't even access Postgres (at any way) without
a transaction. So you always have to start and end the transaction.

> but the CommitRetaining trick seemed to work. The system table
> "pg_stat_activity" still shows the "<IDLE> in transaction" pending

That's because a new transaction is started immediately by
CommitRetaining.

>  query but the lock is no more -- at least I could execute a CREATE
> TABLE normally.

What you should really do is to set the right transaction isolation
level.

Joost