From: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: do I need a rollback() after commit that fails? |
Date: | 2009-09-30 13:02:15 |
Message-ID: | 8D097E1C-0720-413A-866A-929B099D204D@solfertje.student.utwente.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 30 Sep 2009, at 4:01, Vick Khera wrote:
> The question still stands: if the COMMIT fails, ROLLBACK is not
> required in Postgres. Is this portable to other databases?
I don't think so. I recall messages on this list claiming that some
databases (MS SQL, MySQL if memory serves me) commit the queries up to
the failed query anyway if you issue a COMMIT (which is just wrong!),
so the commit succeeds and there's nothing to rollback after that.
Some searching should turn up those messages, if I recall correctly
the issue at hand was that people expected that behaviour in Postgres
too.
But I don't know what Perl DBI does internally when issuing $dbh-
>commit(), maybe it's taking such things into account already.
Alban Hertroys
--
Screwing up is the best way to attach something to the ceiling.
!DSPAM:737,4ac356da11681178911724!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Jacob | 2009-09-30 13:30:15 | Updating row with updating function, bug or feature? |
Previous Message | Sydney Puente | 2009-09-30 12:42:17 | ms-sql -> pg 8.x |