On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering whether it might be reasonabl to let a ConflictError
always doom a transaction.
It already does afaik,
If you look at things like `tal:on-error` then those errors can be
accidentally swallowed and still have the
Hi,
Am Montag, den 07.01.2008, 07:29 -0500 schrieb Jim Fulton:
On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering whether it might be reasonabl to let a ConflictError
always doom a transaction.
It already does afaik,
Hmm. It doesn't seem to, but at least
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 07.01.2008, 07:29 -0500 schrieb Jim Fulton:
On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering whether it might be reasonabl to let a ConflictError
always doom a transaction.
It already does
On Jan 7, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Am Montag, den 07.01.2008, 09:48 -0500 schrieb Jim Fulton:
In general, a conflict error should prevent a commit unless it is
dealt with. I think my motivation and yours are the same. The doom
mechanism is meant to deal with read
