| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-18 10:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | CADK3HH+D2avW21TSaYQ31aRT3C9Vak2PJFvtB5HeYVUP4uKJkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On 18 February 2016 at 05:43, Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com
> wrote:
> The code/framework is written to handle batch inserts, which is common for
> all databases
>
> I feel, PostgreSQL JDBC may need to modify setAutoCommit(false) code to
> "implicit savepoint - on error - rollback to savepoint"
>
This would completely nullify the performance advantage of batch inserts.
Imagine that instead of sending N inserts we now had to do a savepoint
between each one.
PostgreSQL semantics around transaction processing are such that if one
fails they all fail. Unless this can be changed in the backend the driver
is unlikely to support this.
Dave Cramer
davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 10:59:50 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Sridhar N Bamandlapally | 2016-02-18 10:43:36 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 10:59:50 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Sridhar N Bamandlapally | 2016-02-18 10:43:36 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 10:59:50 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Sridhar N Bamandlapally | 2016-02-18 10:43:36 | Re: JDBC behaviour |