From: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Freddie Burgess <fburgess(at)radiantblue(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres JDBC-hibernate Problem |
Date: | 2012-09-19 05:31:07 |
Message-ID: | 5059589B.5020609@ringerc.id.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 09/19/2012 03:46 AM, Freddie Burgess wrote:
>
> The Employee ingest behaves a bit differently - it handles transactions
> programmatically, for example:
>
> Transaction tx = session.beginTransaction();
> session.save(Employee);
> tx.commit();
>
> Could it be possible that if an exception is thrown by the session.save()
> method that the transaction might not be rolled back or closed, although no
> errors pertaining to this scenario were recorded in the PostgreSQL log.
It's possible; I don't use Spring, so I can't really say. I know that in
EJB 3.1 container managed transactions with JTA data sources the
guarantees are strong:
- If the exception thrown is annotated @ApplicationException then
rollback is controlled by that annotation; otherwise:
- If it's an unchecked exception, the transaction is rolled back; and
- If it's a checked exception that's properly declared the transaction
is NOT rolled back
I don't know what Spring's rules are. It's all a bit localized and
specific to your code, so it's difficult to offer any useful advice at
this point.
If there's any chance you can cook it down to a small, runnable,
self-contained test-case that'd be very useful. In my experience when
I've done so I have, in the process, often found a bug in my code that
was the cause of the problem. When I don't find an issue in my code I
usually have something clear that demonstrates a problem and helps
isolate which project(s) the problem is in.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | l1t | 2012-09-19 05:48:08 | BUG #7556: "select not in sub query" plan very poor vs "not exists" |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-19 02:06:38 | Re: BUG #7548: pg_upgrade still requires pg_config |