Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, snpe wrote:

> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 03:05 am, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, snpe wrote:
> > > On Monday 09 September 2002 11:03 pm, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 17:04, snpe wrote:
> > > > > I'm use 'autocommit=false' and have problem with psql
> > > > > When any commnad is lost, then next commnad get error for
> > > > > transactions (simple select command).BTW
> > > > >
> > > > > snpe> select * from org_ba;
> > > > > ERROR: relation org_ba does not exists
> > > > > snpe> select * from org_ban;
> > > > > ERROR: current transactions is aborted, queries ignored until end of
> > > > > transaction block
> > > > > snpe> rollback;
> > > > > ROLLBACK
> > > > > snpe> select * from org_ban;
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that the expected behaviour when
> > > > autocommit is turned off?
> > >
> > > I get this every time.When exists command with error next command don't
> > > work without explicit rollback and commit (this is not for psql, this
> > > error get in with JDeveloper - JDBC driver).When autocommit=ture all is
> > > fine
> >
> > It starts a transaction, failes the first command and goes into the
> > error has occurred in this transaction state. Seems like reasonable
> > behavior.

> Select command don't start transaction - it is not good

I think you need more justification than "it is not good." If I do a
sequence of select statements in autocommit=false, I'd expect the same
consistancy as if I'd done
begin;
select ...;
select ...;

> Error command don't start transaction - nothing hapen, only typing error

If you do an insert that violates a constraint, does that start an
transaction or not? I think we have to choose before we start doing the
statement not after.