| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-20 17:31:38 |
| Message-ID: | 21531.1455989498@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:29:09 +0000
> Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im> wrote:
>> Well, I suppose replacing simple copy with procedural per-row function
>> would give huge performance hit. Also what method do you propose to use in
>> the code? Savepoints?
> Not at all. PL/PGSQL's ON ERROR handling can manage this without needing
> savepoints.
Actually, plpgsql's exception blocks *are* savepoints under the hood.
The backend engine does not have any way of recovering from errors other
than a (sub)transaction abort, which means you can't do this without a
savepoint or equivalent.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2016-02-20 17:34:39 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2016-02-20 17:09:01 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2016-02-20 17:34:39 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2016-02-20 17:09:01 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2016-02-20 17:34:39 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2016-02-20 17:09:01 | Re: JDBC behaviour |