On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 10:15:33PM -0800, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> "G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > > you can't guarantee your data will be in a consistent state without
> > > transactions or some other way to do atomic updates
> > [snip]
> > > (e.g. you're running a message board and who cares if a post gets
> > > lost somewhere) then transactions might be considered unnecessary
> >
> > Might be? Having worked with a BTREE/ISAM package written in C and
> > assembler for the last 15 years or so, I wouldn't dream of using a DB
> > for some of this stuff. It would just get in the way and be 100 times
> > slower than my C code. I lock records as necessary so the data will
> > *always* be consistent and a whole bunch of gotchas simply evaporates.
>
> Right, you've just implemented simple transactions. Your locking
> serializes access to the data and solves race condition problems.
> - Perrin
Serialized access does not give you transactions with A.C.I.D. semantics.
But this isn't the place to discuss that.
Tim.
