| From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Rotteveel <mark(at)lawinegevaar(dot)nl>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-18 17:00:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAB=Je-Fcu8LanHyPir9n-3ePt89OF7jwwQnia9DVhM8QUbFJXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
> 2. as it throw exception for next transaction even when current exception suppressed/handled,
You are plain wrong here.
Next **transaction** would be perfectly fine.
You are somehow ignoring the fact that to start that *next*
transaction you need a rollback/commit call.
next statement != next transaction.
Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-18 17:23:48 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Sridhar N Bamandlapally | 2016-02-18 16:57:24 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-02-18 17:18:25 | Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
| Previous Message | Catalin Iacob | 2016-02-18 16:59:35 | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-18 17:23:48 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Sridhar N Bamandlapally | 2016-02-18 16:57:24 | Re: JDBC behaviour |