Re: - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc
From | Daniel Serodio |
---|---|
Subject | Re: |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1036517863.13292.30.camel@kelly Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: (Dave Cramer <Dave@micro-automation.net>) |
Responses |
Re:
|
List | pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 15:25, Dave Cramer wrote: > Unfortunately, until the backend gives us usefull error codes, there's > not much we can do about catching exceptions intelligently. Well, at least in this particular situation, the backed raises a NOTICE "current transaction is aborted, queries ignored until end of transaction block". Maybe the driver can use this notice to give a more meaningful exception message? > And yes, the behaviour is intended, once a transaction has failed, you > need to end, or roll it back I just read Csaba's reply to my previous post, and now I have a better understanding of this. We can't do much about it if the backend doesn't support savepoints, right? > Dave > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 12:19, Karl Goldstein wrote: > > I don't have a strong opinion either way. For me, the main problem with the current behavior is > > simply that the error message is confusing. If it is indeed the case that any SQLException > > invalidates the current transaction (and my impression is that this is not intended), then the > > driver should report that directly and not even let you try to execute later statements. The "No > > results were returned by the query" error just left me scratching my head. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Karl > > > > --- Daniel Serodio <daniel@checkforte.com.br> wrote: > > > I've never worked with Oracle, just MySQL and PostgreSQL, but isn't this > > > the definition of a transaction? > > > > > > "A transaction is an atomic unit of processing; it is eigher performed > > > in its entirety or not at all" > > > > > > My understanding of this is that if one statement failed, all of the > > > following statements should fail. > > > > > > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 14:31, Csaba Nagy wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I was wondering if there's any chance of this behavior to change in the > > > > future ? > > > > I mean will it be possible to continue a transaction after one of the SQLs > > > > failed, by only rolling back what that query did ? > > > > In many real life applications recovery is very possible after a failed > > > > query, and (the not failed part of) the transaction should be committed. > > > > This is one of the big differences in behavior between Postgres and Oracle, > > > > making life hard for porting... > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Csaba. > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > > http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- > Dave Cramer <Dave@micro-automation.net> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org -- []'s Daniel Serodio
pgsql-jdbc by date: