Hi,

I am currently maintaining an application, which does hibernate queries without an active (manually managed) transaction,
only for data modifications it creates a transaction.
This seems to work well, however I remember somewhere I've read that hibernate always requires a transaction.
What are the implications of ignoring this rule?

It seems for this case the postgresql driver (or hibernate?) opens up a hidden transaction which is kept open indefinetly,
and never commits. (most likely rolls back when the app closes).

Thank you in advance, Clemens

When we go for Single(using methods like save(),delete(),persist() . . ) row operations in Hibernate .

compulsory we need transaction in particular database to transform our into database from Configuration file. And we need save our data into Database it'srequired to commit the transaction into Database otherwise it won't save , just effect only[b][/b].

Sorry, but that is not an answer to my question.

When accessing the database without an active transaction (so read-only access), somewhere somebody creates a Transaction in the background even if the jdbc connection is not in auto-commit mode. In my case there seems a long-running transaction which is never commited responsible for loading entities that are accessed when no explicit transaction was going on.
My question was about who is responsible for this, and wether the behaviour could be changed.



Thanks, Clemens