Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) -- commit fails silently

> >
> The first insert does not fail, it is the duplicate
> key of the second
> insert that is the error.

It does fail since the commit() failed silently. There
is nothing in the database at all.

> >
> They read this and will probably not respond because
> they do not
> consider this an error.

But it's contrary to what oracle, db2, sybase (I
think) and
mysql/innodb do.

It's not documented in the postgresql documentation
either
as far as I can tell.

> This is not a silent failure. The insert errored out
> and gave you a
> message. commit is basically just end transaction
> here.

But why should a insert error mean that I have to
abort
the entire transaction ? And if so, then the driver
can
warn about that, no ? (especially since the same JDBC
code
runs fine on oracle, db2, mysql/innodb and sybase).
It's
a postgres specific non-documented thing, so
shouldn't
the JDBC driver warn us as to what's going on ?

Or are you saying that I need to special case JDBC
code
of postgres ?

> The user is supposed to handle the errors, not the
> driver.

But the error is postgresql specific. There is no
error, only
a insert within a transaction failed. Why should that
affect
the rest of the transaction, if *I* as the user don't
want it to?

Best regards,

--j

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com