| From: | Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-18 08:51:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAGuFTBW=rFvmv2MibYp1UQTNhM93X--ARnd0J22mNoCufBOsgA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Ok, let me put this way
in JDBC we have *setAutoCommit( false ) *, and all dmls are independent
transactions
and when any transaction fails then the session not allowing next
transactions
in Java when we do setAutoCommit( false ) its behaving like all
transactions in BEGIN-END block, this is not expected behavior
i guess this is bug
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > but in this case all these transactions are independent with autocommit
> off,
>
> At database level, there is no "autocommit=off".
> There's just "begin-end".
>
> It is database who forbids .commit, not the JDBC driver.
> Vladimir
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 09:04:56 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-02-18 08:30:49 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 09:04:56 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-02-18 08:51:20 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V16 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 09:04:56 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-02-18 08:30:49 | Re: JDBC behaviour |