"Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson" <johann(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> Tuesday 05 of July
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Well, if the transaction has been rolled back, it's clearly not in
> > prepared state anymore, so XAER_RMERR seems appropriate and the TM
> > shouldn't get upset about that. However, the situation is more
> > ambiguous if the TM issues COMMIT PREPARED and the connection is
> > broken before receiving a reply. It will retry, and if the the
> > COMMIT succeeded the first time, the TM will get XAER_RMERR on the
> > second call. That's more serious.
> There is no reason to return an error on rollback if the transaction
> is unknown. If the DBMS server does not remember the transaction the
> transaction manager can assume it has already been rolled back. That
> is why it is appropriate to silently ignore 42704 or rollback. The
> following patch does this.
> This patch fixes a failure in a testsuite from Atomikos.
I may be wrong, but may VACUUM remove transactions statuses? What will happen
in this situation if transaction will be prepared, commited or rolledback?
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Maciek Sakrejda||Date: 2011-07-05 06:41:46|
|Subject: Re: Question about passing array of a complex type from jdbc
|Previous:||From: Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson||Date: 2011-07-04 22:02:38|
|Subject: Re: Possible oversight in org.postgresql.xa.PGXAConnection.commitPrepared(Xid xid)|