| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>, João Paulo Ribeiro <jp(at)mobicomp(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Behaviour of setAutoCommit may not be completely correct. |
| Date: | 2006-04-01 08:07:11 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.63.0604010303390.13853@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> It looks to me like Sun is trying to clarify their reading of that
> detail with the javadoc change. It's a crummy way to handle it; they
> should have updated the spec. But I'd say the handwriting is on the
> wall about what the next spec version will say.
>
The JDBC 4.0 public draft spec says:
The default is for auto-commit mode to be enabled when the Connection
object is created. If the value of auto-commit is changed in the middle of
a transaction, the current transaction is committed. If setAutoCommit is
called and the value for auto-commit is not changed from its current
value, it is treated as a no-op.
The JDK1.6 beta2 javadoc confirms this:
NOTE: If this method is called during a transaction and the auto-commit
mode is changed, the transaction is committed. If setAutoCommit is called
and the auto-commit mode is not changed, the call is a no-op.
So I think we're fine.
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | babu_moshay | 2006-04-02 05:01:24 | 25P02, current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-01 05:06:40 | Re: Behaviour of setAutoCommit may not be completely correct. |