From: Date: October 25 2007 4:52pm
Subject: RE: Expose errnum() in query -- BadQuery w/Errnum patch part 3
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus/7130
Message-Id: <5AA52B773286DA4E83B1F2D034FFED3763BDE9@mailexchange.klausatlanta.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That's correct, you can't reproduce the problem unless there's a sql
call between the exception and your call to errnum(), which occurs on
the rollback of a transaction.  If you run the deadlock tests, it
demonstrates it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Young [mailto:mysqlpp@stripped]=20
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:16 AM
> To: MySQL++ Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Expose errnum() in query -- BadQuery w/Errnum=20
> patch part 3
>=20
> Jim Wallace wrote:
> > +	/// If you want the string *and* number you must=20
> > +	/// call errnum() before calling error() since error() clears
>=20
> I tried to replicate that by causing an error in one of the=20
> examples, then calling Connection::errnum(), then error(),=20
> then errnum() again, and it shows the same number both times.
>=20
> I think this is just leftover confusion from your initial=20
> problem diagnosis process.  It's not mysql_error() clearing=20
> the error number, it's the second error caused by the=20
> transaction failure.
>=20
> --=20
> MySQL++ Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus
> To unsubscribe:   =20
> http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=3Djwallace@stripped
>=20
>=20
>=20