Mike Rylander <mrylan...@gmail.com> was heard to say: > I think I'd add three calls to the proposed API, though, for support > of savepoints. They're part of the SQL standard, and supported by > several SQL RDBMS' including Postgres (the db my project uses, and we > use libdbi to connect to PG). The relevant PG documentation is > available at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-savepoint.html > . I have wrappers for savepoints in my implementation, and they are > very handy for complex DB interactions. >
Sounds like a no-brainer if it is as simple as you say. I don't keep the SQL standard underneath my pillow, but is it safe to assume that database engines are responsible to deal with any pending savepoints if a transaction is committed (i.e. no extra work for libdbi)? This brings up another question. Applications should of course check the "transaction_supported" and "savepoints_supported" driver capabilities and act responsibly. But if a database engine does not support savepoints, or transactions altogether, should libdbi just go ahead when asked, or should it throw an error instead? I recall that MySQL "supported" transactions in MyISAM tables using no-ops. regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka http://www.mhoenicka.de AQ score 38 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ libdbi-users mailing list libdbi-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libdbi-users
