| From: | Eric Faulhaber <ecf(at)goldencode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan de Visser <jdevisser(at)digitalfairway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Implicit autocommit? |
| Date: | 2007-07-15 21:50:04 |
| Message-ID: | 469A968C.9000203@goldencode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Jan de Visser wrote:
> On Sunday 15 July 2007 13:34:30 Eric Faulhaber wrote:
>
>> Unless I misunderstand your answer, this suggests that vacuum cannot be
>> run via JDBC, since it cannot be run within a transaction block.
>>
>
> Methinks you did misunderstand Oliver; if you use setAutoCommit(true) there
> will be no transaction block at all (the name is a bit confusing: autocommit
> true means there are effectively no commit statements send. At least by the
> pgsql driver). Don't know what that means for your temptables though; if they
> are transaction scoped you're probably SOL, but from your example it seems
> you're using session scoped temp tables, so that should work.
>
>
Indeed I did misunderstand. Setting autocommit to true allows the
vacuum to proceed.
Thanks to both of you for your help!
Regards,
Eric Faulhaber
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2007-07-16 04:02:00 | Re: Stream Copy for 8.1 - 8.3dev |
| Previous Message | Jan de Visser | 2007-07-15 20:14:35 | Re: Implicit autocommit? |