Am Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:48:50PM +1200 schrieb Greg Ewing via Python-list:
> On 8/09/24 9:20 am, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > try: > > do something > > except: > > log something > > finally: > > .commit() > > > >cadence is fairly Pythonic and elegant in that it ensures the > >the .commit() will always be reached regardless of exceptions > >being thrown or not and them being handled or not. > > That seems wrong to me. I would have thought the commit should only > be attempted if everything went right. It is only attempted when "everything" went right. The fault in my thinking was what the "everything" might encompass. When some SQL fails it won't matter whether I say conn.commit() or conn.rollback() or, in fact, nothing at all -- the (DB !) transaction will be rolled back in any case. However, that reasoning missed this: > What if there's a problem in your code that causes a non-SQL-related > exception when some but not all of the SQL statements in the > transaction bave been [-- even successfully --] issued? Still, in this code pattern: > try: > do something > .commit() > except: > log something it doesn't technically matter whether I say .commit or .rollback here: > .rollback() ... but ... > Doing an explicit rollback ensures that the transaction is always > rolled back if it is interrupted for any reason. explicit is better than implicit ;-) Karsten -- GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
