Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: JDBC feature request: auto savepoint per command

From: Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: JDBC feature request: auto savepoint per command
Date: 2007-04-24 10:32:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Tom Lane schrieb:
> I got some further comments later in the day, which might mean more to
> you than they do to me:
>> In this particular case, the client wants the best of both worlds.  
>> They are using straight JDBC, but they also want to use CMT. In  
>> essence they want to execute JDBC interactions in a non-atomic manner  
>> only committing the *global* transaction on completion. While Oracle,  
>> DB2 etc support this, the savepoint commit()/rollback() issue with  
>> the PG driver makes this all but impossible given the current code  
>> base. Effectively the underlying JDBC transaction gets terminated on  
>> statement failure requiring an explicit savepoint and rollback to  
>> return the connection to a usable state which again, when using CMT  
>> is not valid because the connection is still enlisted within a global  
>> transaction.

Is it possible that they don't really understand that this is not about 
the JDBC driver at all, but just the way PostgreSQL works, no? So a 
driver option to do automatic save-pointing is the _only_ way to get the 
behavious they want, I guess. (Other than invasive backend hacking)

> I'm honestly not sure how much of this is "it really would violate some
> spec or other" versus "we don't feel like putting in a special case".
> But the bottom line is they'd like us to act like all the other
> databases they support on this point.

If you look at the list archives, there were a number of people who did 
not expect this PostgreSQL-specific behavior (transaction rollback on 
statement error). I guess there will be many happy people if someone 
implements implicit savepoints in the JDBC driver.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold

In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Oilid AdsiDate: 2007-04-24 11:56:51
Subject: idle in transaction problem
Previous:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2007-04-24 00:39:33
Subject: Re: Can't build postgresql-jdbc-8.2-505 on Fedora 7

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group