Re: JDBC behaviour

From: Mark Rotteveel <mark(at)lawinegevaar(dot)nl>
To: <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JDBC behaviour
Date: 2016-02-18 12:09:18
Message-ID: d36d46129dd36118a94f77370fd52cbf@imap.procolix.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:59:50 +0100 (CET), Andreas Joseph Krogh
<andreas(at)visena(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

On a lot of other database systems, that is exactly how it works. If a
statement fails, that one statement is backed out (rolled back), and it is
still up to the user to decide if he wants to commit or rollback the
statements that did succeed.

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vitaly Burovoy 2016-02-18 12:11:57 Re: Query plan not updated after dropped index
Previous Message Lupi Loop 2016-02-18 12:01:02 Windows default directory for client certificates

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2016-02-18 12:15:11 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message 大塚憲司 2016-02-18 12:02:15 The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ?

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2016-02-18 12:15:11 Re: JDBC behaviour
Previous Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-02-18 11:28:25 Re: JDBC behaviour