Re: Committed updates don't seem to be committed.
От | Frank Kurzawa |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Committed updates don't seem to be committed. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D273959D-C50F-11D8-8567-00039366F1F4@topazsoftware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Committed updates don't seem to be committed. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Committed updates don't seem to be committed.
|
Список | pgsql-novice |
Let's assume that there is a bug in hibernate that is causing it to start a transaction behind my back. I'm trying to understand what footprints it would leave and I see three possibilities: a) It later commits the transaction behind my back b) It later rolls back the transaction behind my back c) It just leaves the transaction uncommitted/unrolledback/just dangling out there. for a): I don't think this could be happening or my data would actually be in the database for b): I don't think this could be happening or I would see evidence of the rollback in the pgsql log That leaves (c): What would this look like? If I do a 'ps -efl' should I find a postgres process in a particular state? ('idle waiting on transaction', 'idle in transaction', or something else)? Should there be some other footprints lying around that I can look at? Some record of the pending transaction in some postgres system tables? ...so call me clueless if you like, because I AM clueless. LOL Regards, Frank On Jun 23, 2004, at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > You should definitely not ignore the possibility that Hibernate is > broken (or to put it more politely, hasn't fully debugged its > PostgreSQL > interface module). I do not recall hearing from any satisfied users of > Hibernate-on-Postgres before ... in fact I never heard of Hibernate > before ... so call me clueless if you like, but a few rough edges in > the > interface don't seem too implausible from here. > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: