Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)
Дата
Msg-id 41E843C0.2080005@fastcrypt.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)  (Vadim Nasardinov <vadimn@redhat.com>)
Ответы Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)
Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)
Список pgsql-jdbc


Vadim Nasardinov wrote:
On Friday 14 January 2005 16:38, Oliver Jowett wrote: 
It might be worthwhile having commit() throw an exception if the 
transaction did not actually commit, rather than only reporting 
server-generated errors. What do people think?   
Sounds like a good idea.
 
It'd be possible to have optional "automatic savepoint wrapping" in the 
driver, where every user query was transparently wrapped in 
subtransaction. You might prefer to write the code to make the driver do 
this, rather than change your application.   
Also seems like a useful feature at first blush.
 
I'd hope this was optional, I certainly don't want every statement wrapped in a savepoint.

I see no point in either of these as the solution is simple... Don't ignore errors.
However I wouldn't argue if the first was implemented. The second is questionable due to the extra code complexity and the overhead imposed.
How many savepoints can the system handle ? What if I have a huge transaction ?

Dave
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate     subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your     message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

 

-- 
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561

В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Vadim Nasardinov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)
Следующее
От: Vadim Nasardinov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)