On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:52:06 -0700, Charles Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With regard to the nested transaction suggestion, I was hoping that this > would allow an inner transaction to be rolled back after encountering an > error, such that the outer transaction could continue (which I > understand to be the behavior you're wanting, right?). Also, by > segmenting the changes into a different inner transaction per product, > one could tell which product an error was with regard to by looking at > which inner transaction failed. After some research, it looks like a > failure in the inner transaction may kill the outer transaction as well, > such that this suggestion isn't actually a practicable way to (1) > isolate individual operations such that you can tell which one failed, > and (2) allow as many operations as possible to succeed. I might be > wrong about this -- if the inner transaction can be rolled back after > the error occurs, that would mean you could proceed with others -- but > I'd need to actually test it to see what the behavior is. > fwiw, nested transactions in sa are purely a convience mechanism for 'lazy' programming. they don't corresponded to database notions of the same, and are merely a way afaics of balancing begin/commits for a particular progamming style. cheers, -kapil ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
