On Wednesday 14 January 2004 09:45, Chris Travers wrote:
> From: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well, actually, the problem appears to be that people want to be able to
> > roll back each individual statement without killing the parent
>
> transaction,
>
> > and they want to make this the default behaviour. This takes it out of
> > the "never used" category to "everybody does it" category.
>
> Ok. Now I am confused. I thought that a nested transaction would involve
> two features:
> 1: The ability to incrimentally commit/rollback changes, i.e. at certain
> points in the transaction have a sub-commit.
> 2: The ability to have a transaction within another transaction with
> transactional visibility rules applying within the transaction tree.
Of course you can do #1 with #2.
> What exactly do you mean by roll back individual statements? What exactly
> would be the default behavior?
I think we're talking about the "insert and if that fails update" sequence
that seems to be a common approach.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
