Joost van der Sluis wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 17:40 -0200, Alexsander Rosa wrote:
But it is transparent to the libpq programmer; why it's not
transparent with sqldb?
To learn people that they have to use transactions. There are only a
very few cases in which you don't need a transaction.
But most programmers do a: not know how why transactions are there and
how they should be used, or b: are too sloppy to use them properly.
That most people do not understand what a transaction is and where it is
for, is demonstrated by you thinking that it was possible to do
something with Postgres without a transaction. For each transactional
database it is completely impossible to work without transactions. Or
else it woudn't be a transactional database anymore.
I believe that it was I who introduced that initial misconception, the
context being that I'd forgotten that PostgreSQL always had an implicit
transaction. Hence the (tongue-in-cheek) subject line.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
