Karl,
What version of the driver are you using? I think the error reported in
this case in the latest version (7.3) is better than the error from the
7.2 driver.
--Barry
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
>
