"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
