Re: Shouldn't "aborted transaction" be an ERROR? (was Re: - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc
From | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Shouldn't "aborted transaction" be an ERROR? (was Re: |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1023979494.1540.173.camel@inspiron.cramers Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Shouldn't "aborted transaction" be an ERROR? (was Re: [NOVICE] Optimising inside transactions) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-jdbc |
I have just tested this on the latest code using the following Connection con = JDBC2Tests.openDB(); try { // transaction mode con.setAutoCommit(false); Statement stmt = con.createStatement(); stmt.execute("select 1/0"); fail( "Should not execute this, as a SQLException s/b thrown" ); con.commit(); } catch ( Exception ex ) { } try { con.commit(); con.close(); }catch ( Exception ex) {} } and it executes as expected. It throws the SQLException and does not execute the fail statement Thanks, Dave On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 12:12, Tom Lane wrote: > John Taylor <postgres@jtresponse.co.uk> writes: > > On Wednesday 12 June 2002 16:36, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Queries after the failure aren't run at all; they're only passed through > >> the parser's grammar so it can look for a COMMIT or ROLLBACK command. > >> Normal processing resumes after ROLLBACK. If you were paying attention > >> to the return codes you'd notice complaints like > >> > >> regression=# begin; > >> BEGIN > >> regression=# select 1/0; > >> ERROR: floating point exception! The last floating point operation either exceeded legal ranges or was a divide byzero > >> -- subsequent queries will be rejected like so: > >> regression=# select 1/0; > >> WARNING: current transaction is aborted, queries ignored until end of transaction block > >> *ABORT STATE* > > > Well, I'm using JDBC, and it isn't throwing any exceptions, so I > > assumed it was working :-/ > > This brings up a point that's bothered me in the past. Why is the > "queries ignored" response treated as a NOTICE and not an ERROR? > A client that is not paying close attention to the command result code > (as JDBC is evidently not doing :-() might think that its command had > been executed. > > It seems to me the right behavior is > > regression=# select 1/0; > ERROR: current transaction is aborted, queries ignored until end of transaction block > regression=# > > I think the reason why it's been done with a NOTICE is that if we > elog(ERROR) on the first command of a query string, we'll not be able to > process a ROLLBACK appearing later in the same string --- but that > behavior does not seem nearly as helpful as throwing an error. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >
pgsql-jdbc by date: