On 4/2/2014 8:01 PM, Leyne, Sean wrote: > >> 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. > No, as stated elsewhere, if the secondary transactions shared the the relevant part of the TIP when the "mega-transaction" started, all would have identical retrieval characteristics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
