Re: JDBC behaviour

From: Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JDBC behaviour
Date: 2016-02-22 05:35:11
Message-ID: CAGuFTBU-nxAsfWXZLZ8e6N9bOXr+nAAmai45WapTL=aecvH=ZQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

I may be wrong, please correct if,

can we do function overloading to add functionality with savepoint option,
i.e. with this both will be available and its app developers to chose

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:29:09 +0000
> > Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im> wrote:
> >> Well, I suppose replacing simple copy with procedural per-row function
> >> would give huge performance hit. Also what method do you propose to use
> in
> >> the code? Savepoints?
>
> > Not at all. PL/PGSQL's ON ERROR handling can manage this without needing
> > savepoints.
>
> Actually, plpgsql's exception blocks *are* savepoints under the hood.
> The backend engine does not have any way of recovering from errors other
> than a (sub)transaction abort, which means you can't do this without a
> savepoint or equivalent.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John R Pierce 2016-02-22 06:35:37 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-22 05:06:00 Re: Why is my database so big?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Catalin Iacob 2016-02-22 05:53:54 Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2016-02-22 05:32:44 Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John R Pierce 2016-02-22 06:35:37 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-02-22 01:22:16 Re: JDBC behaviour