At 11:51 14/2/2001 +1300, Phil Daintree wrote:
>This also troubles me i have read and read the docs on this. It seems that
>Lock tables
>prevents other threads interfering with your transaction your inserts
>will not be
>compromised by another thread deleting or updating data inconsistent with
>your SQL. The
>snag for me is that all obscure input from the user and every other
>eventuality has to be
>trapped prior to avoid sending dud SQL to MySQL, other wise the
>inserts/updates will fail.
>The TO DO list talks about atomic inserts/updates which would solve my
>problems ie they
>all happen or all do NOT happen. If MySQL can do this then I don't care
>about rollback. I
>would dearly like to use the fast tables rather than compromise speed
>using DBD tables but
>as I see it we are stuck with them or Postgres until the atomic updates
>code is completed.
>
>Be interested to know if anyone has got atomic updates sorted.
tomorrow I'll try to compile BDB, in my Win9x... and get it to work... if
it does REAL transaction than I can develop nicely with mysql... I'll let u
know...
____________________________
. Christian Dechery (lemming)
. http://www.tanamesa.com.br
. Gaita-L Owner / Web Developer
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
