Re:

Barry,

I've primarily been using the 7.2 driver. I'm pretty sure I tried the latest driver as well, and
got the same error message.

In any event, now that the expected behavior is clear to me I can carry on with my app. I would
suggest, however, adding a note about this behavior to the JDBC documentation [1], since it does
differ from the way the Oracle JDBC driver behaves, for example.

Karl

[1] http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/jdbc.html

--- Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> What version of the driver are you using? I think the error reported in
> this case in the latest version (7.3) is better than the error from the
> 7.2 driver.
>
> --Barry
>
> Karl Goldstein wrote:
> > 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/
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

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