Re: JDBC behaviour

From: Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: JDBC behaviour
Date: 2016-02-18 11:02:00
Message-ID: VisenaEmail.10b.13d77f0d98d4ad81.152f409b3ee@tc7-visena
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

På torsdag 18. februar 2016 kl. 11:59:50, skrev Andreas Joseph Krogh <
andreas(at)visena(dot)com <mailto:andreas(at)visena(dot)com>>:
På torsdag 18. februar 2016 kl. 11:43:36, skrev Sridhar N Bamandlapally <
sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>>:
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"

 
You simply cannot have batch-inserts in the same transaction and expecting the
batch not to fail if one of the statements in the batch fails.
 
Note that it's perfectly doable to have a connection-pool configured with
autocommit=false and do the transaction-management your self. Then you can do
whatever you want when one statement fails. You would want to rollback that
statement...
 
-- Andreas Joseph Krogh
CTO / Partner - Visena AS
Mobile: +47 909 56 963
andreas(at)visena(dot)com <mailto:andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
www.visena.com <https://www.visena.com>
<https://www.visena.com>

 

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sridhar N Bamandlapally 2016-02-18 11:11:35 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-18 10:59:50 Re: JDBC behaviour

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sridhar N Bamandlapally 2016-02-18 11:11:35 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-18 10:59:50 Re: JDBC behaviour

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sridhar N Bamandlapally 2016-02-18 11:11:35 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-18 10:59:50 Re: JDBC behaviour