On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 04:24:31PM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 08:15:12AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > Ok, so you'd like to issue the warning in the dangerous case only, but > > DBI doesn't have the necessary information. That seems like a rather > > conspicuous flaw in the design, but I'm glad there's a plan to fix it! > > Calling it a "conspicuous flaw in the design" glosses over the fact > that many drivers and database API's can't tell if they are or not.
Ok, so a conspicuous flaw in the drivers. :-) > I generally only add something to the DBI when the DBI can 'fake it' > for drivers that can't do it themselves. In this case the DBI will > count execute()/do() calls and reset the counter on commit()/rollback(). > Then the counter can be used to control the warning for drivers that > can't tell if they're in a transaction or not. Sounds great. Andrew
