On 2024-09-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:48:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote:

But what if you tell it the wrong thing ...

To get back to the original point of this thread, all that rigmarole to
try to ensure to call “rollback” in case of an exception is completely unnecessary: the DBMS will take care of that for you.

No, it won't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:48:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote:

But what if you tell it the wrong thing ...

To get back to the original point of this thread, all that rigmarole to
try to ensure to call “rollback” in case of an exception is completely unnecessary: the DBMS will take care of that for you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:48:50 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:

This is how I normally do things like this:

try:
do something .commit()
except:
log something .rollback()

Doing an explicit rollback ensures that the transaction is always rolled
back if it is interrupted for any reason.

Don’t bother. Let the DBMS deal with that for you. That’s what it’s for.

Also, maybe you meant “finally” instead of “except”?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)