> you can adapt my FAQ example > http://itstop.pl/en-en/Porady/Firebird/FAQ2/FIRST-SNAPSHOT > but starting all transactions as "First Snapshot" transactions in many > connections where system is still working i suppose is quite to impossible > with it.
At first glance it does seem to be appropriate for multiple connections. How would connections be identified as needing to participate in the "coordinated transaction"? I will have a more detailed look later tonight/tomorrow. > But question is - why you need to have many connections in this case? > What is wrong with single connection. > I do not know what exactly are you trying to avoid, but it smell to me as > black-hole design. As I answered to Dimitry S: I need all of the connections to see the same view of data. With "ordinary" transactions, it is possible for the 5th+ of 10 transactions to see changes which were committed by a transaction that was started before the 1st transaction was started -- ie. an inconsistent view of data. Only if all 10 transactions are started "at the same moment" can consistency be guaranteed. Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
