Re: JDBC behaviour

From: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: JDBC behaviour
Date: 2016-02-18 10:29:37
Message-ID: 56C59D11.2070208@hogranch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

if you want each insert to work indepedently yet stay with the
transaction model, then each insert should be its own transaction...

conn.setAutoCommit(false);
executeUpdate("insert into employee(id,name) values(1, 'K1')");
conn.commit();
executeUpdate("insert into employee(id,name) values(1, 'K1')");
conn.commit();
executeUpdate("insert into employee(id,name) values(1, 'K2')");
conn.commit();

otherwise the way you wrote it, its a single transaction. all three
inserts have to succeed, otherwise, all three are rolledback. why is
that so hard to understand?

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Victor Blomqvist 2016-02-18 10:32:49 Re: Query plan not updated after dropped index
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-18 10:22:13 Re: JDBC behaviour

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-02-18 10:31:08 Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V16
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-18 10:22:13 Re: JDBC behaviour

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sridhar N Bamandlapally 2016-02-18 10:43:36 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-18 10:22:13 Re: JDBC behaviour