Re: Unable to commit: transaction marked for rollback
От | David Kerr |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unable to commit: transaction marked for rollback |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C2CFDE1.1020308@mr-paradox.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unable to commit: transaction marked for rollback ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unable to commit: transaction marked for rollback
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On 7/1/2010 12:20 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > David Kerr<dmk@mr-paradox.net> wrote: > >> Would postgres normally log the error in the TX? > > A previous statement should have generated the original exception, > if that's what you mean. ok. >> (it's not, which is why i'm asking) > > Where are you checking? If you're talking about exceptions you're > fielding, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen sloppy exception > handling hide the first exception (the one that actually matters) > and throw a secondary exception. One common mistake is to catch the > first exception and try to do some cleanup, but allow an exception > to be thrown from the cleanup code -- completely hiding the first > exception. I'm checking the Postgres logs. (I'm not Java savvy, but i'll pass the info along to my developers) > > There are, of course, variations on this, but you get the gist of > it. > > Have you checked the PostgreSQL log file for clues? If you're not > seeing what you need, you could tweak the logging to show more. We're trying that, it's (of course) intermittent and happens after like 5 hours. so huge logfiles, etc as usual. With log_statements=none turned on PG logs database errors. so it seems like whatever's happening isn't being considered an "error". more of a natural database transaction (like a lock) or something. does that sound about right? Thanks Dave
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: