| From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Date: | 2016-02-20 13:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | na9os1$k3l$1@ger.gmane.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
John R Pierce schrieb am 20.02.2016 um 12:05:
> near as I can tell, the OP has used some sort of SQL (unspecified) where multiple inserts
>within a transaction are individually inserted, regardless of one failing.
At least Oracle does it this way (and I think DB2 as well).
Oracle gets really slow if you do a row-by-row commit with large inserts. That's why
most people don't use auto-commit and just ignore any errors during inserts for batch loads.
> to me this seems to break the rules of transaction semantics
I agree, the expected behaviour from the OP does violate the A in the ACID principle,
but apparently it's popular enough that people think the correct behaviour is a bug:
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2016-02-20 14:51:58 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:13:46 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2016-02-20 14:51:58 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Filip Rembiałkowski | 2016-02-20 13:00:09 | Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2016-02-20 14:51:58 | Re: JDBC behaviour |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-20 11:13:46 | Re: JDBC behaviour |