Re: JDBC behaviour

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Rotteveel <mark(at)lawinegevaar(dot)nl>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JDBC behaviour
Date: 2016-02-18 17:23:48
Message-ID: 31236.1455816228@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> Please take this up with pgsql-hackers..
> This is not something JDBC can solve

The reception on -hackers won't be any more positive. The performance and
backwards-compatibility problems associated with changing these semantics
mean that it won't happen. You need to perform an explicit savepoint
anywhere you want to be able to roll back to.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Wooten 2016-02-18 17:33:13 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-02-18 17:00:44 Re: JDBC behaviour

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anastasia Lubennikova 2016-02-18 17:29:36 Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Previous Message Joe Conway 2016-02-18 17:20:29 Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Wooten 2016-02-18 17:33:13 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-02-18 17:00:44 Re: JDBC behaviour