From: | Vadim Nasardinov <vadimn(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) |
Date: | 2005-01-14 22:27:02 |
Message-ID: | 200501141727.02241@vadim.nasardinov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Friday 14 January 2005 17:12, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I see no point in either of these as the solution is simple... Don't
> ignore errors.
This is a misrepresentation of the other side's argument.
I mentioned this thread earlier in this discussion:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-03/threads.php#00067
Consider, in particular,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-03/msg00070.php
The guy is most emphatically _not_ ignoring errors. Wouldn't you
agree?
The point of the solutions that Oliver proposed is not hard to see. I
can write code that works unchanged with Oracle, Sybase, DB2,
MySQL/InnoDB, Firebird and god knows what else. As soon as I throw
PostgreSQL into the mix, I need to handle a radically different
transaction semantics all of a sudden. Oliver's proposal obviates the
need for special-casing PostgreSQL in my application code, albeit
admittedly at the expense of incurring a measurable performance hit.
Which is fine with me, as long as I'm informed of the tradeoff.
YMMV.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | j.random.programmer | 2005-01-14 23:01:42 | Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) -- commit fails silently |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-01-14 22:12:16 | Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) |