Julius Stroffek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: >> Bryan Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>>> The key question is whether the statement with error should (or >>>> could) rollback the active transaction? >>> Does this same situation arise with an embedded configuration? If so, how >>> does the embedded engine handle your test case? >>> >> >> With an embedded configuration, the result of executing the statement >> which fails is exactly the same as not executing the statement. That >> is, nothing is changed in the database regardless of autocommit mode >> and whether commit() is called. Also, it doesn't roll back any other >> uncommitted changes made by that transaction. >> >> > Could we unify the behavior of the embedded configuration and a derby net ?
It is possible to make embedded behave like the network client by doing the same delayed error reporting, but I don't think it is desirable in this case. I would rather have too many uncommitted changes rolled back than false data inserted into the database. -- Knut Anders
