Is parallel DML transactionally equivalent to non parellel DML?

Question

So I've got a whole bunch of insert into select statements where I have parallel hints on my inserts.
if I have parent object A and child object B
I fetch all the A's I want to move and use FORALL (with FETCH LIMIT ie.batches)
to insert all the A's in the parent table. I also store the pk's of batch A so that I can use those in a join to identify the B's for this batch of A's.
INSERT /*+ parallel(arch,4) */ INTO ARCHIVED_A arch
SELECT *
FROM NONARCHIVED_A non_arch
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM ids i
WHERE non_arch.ot_id = i.ot_id);
something like that.
I am finding that this works fine when I don't use parallel DML
whenever I use parallel DML I end up with the A's archived but no B's.

Answer 1

From: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28313/usingpe.htm#i1006876
A session that is enabled for parallel DML may put transactions in the session in a special mode: If any DML statement in a transaction modifies a table in parallel, no subsequent serial or parallel query or DML statement can access the same table again in that transaction. This means that the results of parallel modifications cannot be seen during the transaction.
Serial or parallel statements that attempt to access a table that has already been modified in parallel within the same transaction are rejected with an error message.So it's not quite "transactionally equivalent", in the sense that you cannot read the changes made by a parallel DML statement: you must commit them first.
Could your code be loosing the error message (that you will get if you try to read your changes) in some when-others handler?