At 6:45 PM -0700 4/10/07, Darren Duncan wrote:
If one wants to still deny that rolling back a child without rolling
back a parent has no practical use, then we might as well not have
built-in SQL statements that are atomic, because that is exactly the
same end result for users.
If someone is confused by the typo I just made here, it was meant to say:
If one wants to still deny that rolling back a child without
rolling back a parent has [any] practical use, then we might as well
not have built-in SQL statements that are atomic, because that is
exactly the same end result for users.
-- Darren Duncan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
