On 18 February 2016 at 16:13, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
If you want to shoot yourself in a foot for fun and profit, you can
> try https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/477.
>
I think this should be incorporated, once it's ready, as a non-default
connection option. It's handy for porting applicati
On 2/18/2016 12:26 AM, Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote:
If we want transactions in "begin-end" then its fine,
but in this case all these transactions are independent with
autocommit off,
with autocommit OFF, when you issue the first query, jdbc generates a
postgresql BEGIN; this starts a post
Ok, let me put this way
in JDBC we have *setAutoCommit( false ) *, and all dmls are independent
transactions
and when any transaction fails then the session not allowing next
transactions
in Java when we do setAutoCommit( false ) its behaving like all
transactions in BEGIN-END block, this is not
> but in this case all these transactions are independent with autocommit off,
At database level, there is no "autocommit=off".
There's just "begin-end".
It is database who forbids .commit, not the JDBC driver.
Vladimir
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To m
If we want transactions in "begin-end" then its fine,
but in this case all these transactions are independent with autocommit off,
user choice to continue with commit or rollback
Thanks
Sridhar
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is it
>Is it a bug or do we have other any alternate way to handle this ?
PostgreSQL is strongly against "partial commits to the database". If
you think a bit about it, it is not that bad.
You got an error, what is the business case to commit the partial
transaction then?
Exceptions should not be used
