| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-20 11:05:35 |
| Message-ID: | 56C8487F.7020406@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On 2/20/2016 2:44 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hand-waving about how we're doing it wrong won't get you anywhere.
>
near as I can tell, the OP has used some sort of SQL (unspecified) where
multiple inserts within a transaction are individually inserted,
regardless of one failing.
to me this seems to break the rules of transaction semantics, but it
matches the behavior with autocommit=on ...
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:13:46 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:02:29 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:13:46 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:02:29 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:13:46 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:02:29 | Re: JDBC behaviour |