Thre real cause of the problem turned out to be something silly that I had
done. I had done a save() on a newly created object and then also done a
doInsert(), afterthe PK had already been filled in. The doInsert() did NOT
throw an exception or return any sort of an error. The Oracle error
manifested itself on a subsequent operation, I'm not sure whether the very
next one but certainly one very shortly after.
So the answer turns out to be sloppy programming on my part exacerbated by
poor diagnostics from the library code.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Thomas Fischer" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | u.net> |
| | |
| | |
| | 21-Jan-2005 13:45|
| | Please respond to|
| | "Apache Torque |
| | Users List" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | pache.org> |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
|
|
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: SET TRANSACTION must be first statement of transaction
|
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Hi,
if you find out anything about the error please post it here. I remember
this problem was reported before to the users list but I do not remember
that the problem was solved.
You can try to log the SQL statements via P6Spy:
http://wiki.apache.org/db-torque/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#head-4658ec85746ef90e0d810fb85fd135d9dd30e264
I have never done this myself, though, so no idea whether this can help
you.
Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 21.01.2005 10:49:48:
> I have just recently started getting the error 'SET TRANSACTION must be
> first statement of transaction' from my application. The error occurs on
> Torque calls that are not using transactions. Can anyone suggest possible
> causes? The application was working fine, so I presume that some change
> that I made caused this. I am running Torque 3.1 with Oracle 9 on Solaris
> and Linux. The base installation has not changed for some months.
>
> I have checked that all transactions are properly committed/rolled back;
> tried changing 'testOnBorrow' from 'true' to 'false'. Are there any more
> usual suspects that I ought to investigate?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
