On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Markus Hoenicka
<markus.hoeni...@mhoenicka.de> wrote:
> not exceptionally dumb, but rather touching a sensitive issue. I've
> used simple wrappers in one of my applications that could easily be
> moved into libdbi. I think a transaction interface has been missing
> from libdbi because some database engines that were supported in the
> days of yore did not have transaction support.

Ah! At least this explains.

> I think most database
> engines which are supported or have experimental support these days
> support transactions by sending queries along the lines of "begin" or
> "begin work" etc.

That's what I would expect. However, I think it would be useful to
have a call like "drvrTXSupport()" returning 1 if the driver supports
transaction and 0 otherwise. That way, an app could either fall back
to non-transcation mode OR tell the user that the database system is
not suitable for that kind of application. That would probably also
provide a smooth migration path, were only the primary TX interface
needs to be implemented and drivers can be upgraded as time permits
(assuming that some drivers are maintained by external entities).

For TX support, I'd expect calls for

- begin transaction
- commit
- rollback

that's it, so all in all 4 calls. Would you agree to that?

> This should be easy to retrofit. I'lls see if I find
> some time but feel free to beat me at it.

I am quite busy myself at the moment, but I could try and see if I
could craft something along that path...


Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single
web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware,
SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.
Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications!
libdbi-users mailing list

Reply via email to