Re:

I don't have a strong opinion either way. For me, the main problem with the current behavior is
simply that the error message is confusing. If it is indeed the case that any SQLException
invalidates the current transaction (and my impression is that this is not intended), then the
driver should report that directly and not even let you try to execute later statements. The "No
results were returned by the query" error just left me scratching my head.

Thanks,

Karl

--- Daniel Serodio <daniel(at)checkforte(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> I've never worked with Oracle, just MySQL and PostgreSQL, but isn't this
> the definition of a transaction?
>
> "A transaction is an atomic unit of processing; it is eigher performed
> in its entirety or not at all"
>
> My understanding of this is that if one statement failed, all of the
> following statements should fail.
>
> On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 14:31, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was wondering if there's any chance of this behavior to change in the
> > future ?
> > I mean will it be possible to continue a transaction after one of the SQLs
> > failed, by only rolling back what that query did ?
> > In many real life applications recovery is very possible after a failed
> > query, and (the not failed part of) the transaction should be committed.
> > This is one of the big differences in behavior between Postgres and Oracle,
> > making life hard for porting...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Csaba.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/