Dean Landolt wrote: -- snip -- >> The possible application I'm talking about doesn't need transactions, >> they just need a simple way of rolling back a set of changes >> (preferably atomically but not necessarily). I'm not looking to banish >> conflicts, just minimise them where possible. >> > > I can't find the message right now, but Damien pointed out some edge cases > that make replication really tangled if you're looking for consistency. > Though as you noted, if your model can handle conflicts, this would be a > non-issue. >
Yep.. I think the implication was that even though you'd get your change atomically when you saved on the single node. The change would be applied non-atomically during replication. The case I'm talking about isn't really to do with the atomicity of the operation but to do with making it easier to rollback a set of changes. Tim
