From: | "j(dot)random(dot)programmer" <javadesigner(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) -- commit fails silently |
Date: | 2005-01-14 23:01:42 |
Message-ID: | 20050114230142.69954.qmail@web14201.mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Hi:
> fail. A subsequent
> COMMIT will not actually commit; it will roll back.
> ...snip...
> it has been for ages. Don't ignore errors from your
> queries!
ok !
> It might be worthwhile having commit() throw an
> exception if the
> transaction did not actually commit, rather than
> only reporting
> server-generated errors. What do people think?
Yup. But if that's too much of a dirty hack, then an
alternative
is to put the current behavior in the JDBC FAQ section
located
at:
http://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/faq.html
>
> 7.4 returns COMMIT for rolled-back COMMITs, but does
> report transactions
> that have failed via the v3 protocol. 8.0 returns
> ROLLBACK for
> rolled-back COMMITs and also uses the v3 protocol.
> So it should be
> possible to detect this case for both 7.4 and 8.0
> reasonably easily.
Cool, then maybe the 8.x driver should do so. And the
current
driver's (or actually the postgres database's)
behavior can
be described in the FAQ ? I think that would be _very_
useful
for newbies who might otherwise be bit by this
behavior and/or
post the same question again and again to the mailing
list.
> Also in 8.0 and later, there is savepoint support
> that helps with this
> case. The pattern to use is something like this:
> [....snip lots of info...]
Thanks for that additional info.
Best regards,
--j
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-14 23:44:53 | Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) |
Previous Message | Vadim Nasardinov | 2005-01-14 22:27:02 | Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) |