Re: JDBC behaviour
| От | Thomas Kellerer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | na9os1$k3l$1@ger.gmane.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: JDBC behaviour (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
John R Pierce schrieb am 20.02.2016 um 12:05: > near as I can tell, the OP has used some sort of SQL (unspecified) where multiple inserts >within a transaction are individually inserted, regardless of one failing. At least Oracle does it this way (and I think DB2 as well). Oracle gets really slow if you do a row-by-row commit with large inserts. That's why most people don't use auto-commit and just ignore any errors during inserts for batch loads. > to me this seems to break the rules of transaction semantics I agree, the expected behaviour from the OP does violate the A in the ACID principle, but apparently it's popular enough that people think the correct behaviour is a bug: http://dba.stackexchange.com/a/129822/1822
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: