Re: JDBC behaviour

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: JDBC behaviour
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwbo6QZ7dae91mPcnXJyija4EfDX4=F_ULta2hXf4XwbEw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: JDBC behaviour  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: JDBC behaviour  (Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit@tym.im>)
Re: JDBC behaviour  (Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit@tym.im>)
Список pgsql-jdbc
Дерево обсуждения
On Saturday, February 20, 2016, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 20 February 2016 at 19:05, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
 

to me this seems to break the rules of transaction semantics, but it matches the behavior with autocommit=on  ...


... which doesn't matter, because if you wanted that you'd just set autocommit=on.

I think all this discussion of autocommit is a pointless side-track. Reading between the lines, the real complaint appears to be that we abort the xact if a statement ERRORs, and by default other DBMS vendors don't. OP wants something like psqlODBC's "statement" error-rollback mode where savepoints are done automatically before each statement.


So basically it's a means to obtain some I/O savings by not forcing a WAL flush on every statement while still retaining the semantics of autocommit.

If the final commit fails (or never happens) none of the successful rows appear but otherwise you get some improvement in I/O which is mitigated but the cost of savepoint handling.

David J.

В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Dave Cramer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: JDBC behaviour
Следующее
От: Vitalii Tymchyshyn
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: JDBC behaviour