From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Harry Mantheakis <harry(at)mantheakis(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using auto-commit OFF for transactions - instead of |
Date: | 2004-03-08 12:15:31 |
Message-ID: | 1078748131.2419.18.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Harry,
You should use the driver's set autocommit(false) instead, as then the
driver will know the state of the connection.
BTW, I'm sure oracle has a similiar "begin" statement.
Dave
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 06:40, Harry Mantheakis wrote:
> Hello
>
> I ported a relatively simple application using Oracle 8i with a JDBC client
> to PostgreSQL 7.4 with the same JDBC client, and everything just worked!
>
> One thing that did come to light was that PG offers a proprietary 'BEGIN'
> statement as a means of controlling transactions.
>
> With Oracle, I was used to setting auto-commit to false at the start of a
> transaction, and then calling commit or rollback at the end.
>
> Is it safe for me to continue setting auto-commit to false for transactions,
> and are there any compelling reasons - significant performance gains,
> perhaps - why I might want to consider adopting PG's 'BEGIN' statement
> instead?
>
> Many thanks in anticipation.
>
> Harry Mantheakis
> London, UK
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-03-08 13:31:42 | Re: Using auto-commit OFF for transactions - instead of |
Previous Message | Harry Mantheakis | 2004-03-08 11:40:18 | Using auto-commit OFF for transactions - instead of BEGIN |