| From: | Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-18 09:20:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAGuFTBXf_1Vws=Ja3nCqvRGvWPE2W4ATpCyxrreCgWFi0Yii=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
setAutoCommit(false), it should not be treating all next transactions as
single set, simple, this is what expected behavior
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
wrote:
> På torsdag 18. februar 2016 kl. 09:51:47, skrev Sridhar N Bamandlapally <
> sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> 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
>
>
> No, you got it backwards. With autocommit=false all statements are NOT
> independent transactions.
>
> --
> *Andreas Joseph Krogh*
> CTO / Partner - Visena AS
> Mobile: +47 909 56 963
> andreas(at)visena(dot)com
> www.visena.com
> <https://www.visena.com>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2016-02-18 09:21:04 | Re: Query plan not updated after dropped index |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 09:04:56 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-02-18 09:24:07 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-02-18 09:19:08 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-02-18 09:24:07 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-02-18 09:04:56 | Re: JDBC behaviour |