On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:12:06AM +0100, Neil Garthwaite wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >In both approaches the monitor 'method' runs in its own contract and > >with a restarter. In both cases the monitor can die/be killed and will > >get restarted, and in both cases the monitor has to know what to do to > >recover. > > > > > > Well, I suspect the last point you've raised is the issue Richard is > referring to when he writes, > > For a monitor which is making a database transaction, then there needs to > be enough smarts in the monitor to cancel an in-flight transactions which > might interfere with its analysis of the database health.
Why can't there be a dummy table and have the monitor's transaction be nothing more than an update? Then why would the monitor need to recover state?
