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

Reply via email to