On May 28, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Kent Bower wrote: > On 5/28/2010 10:08 AM, Michael Bayer wrote: >> Is the pattern that you want to keep re-issuing a savepoint repeatedly using >> the same name ? Does that have some different usage of resources versus >> issuing/closing distinct savepoints with different names ? >> > As an aside, since oracle apparently has no 'release savepoint', I imagine > the answer to your second question might be: "yes, when using oracle with > thousands of potential savepoints." I think I've worked around this for > now, so I'm not asking you to necessarily do anything about it, but it might > be somewhat of a minor enhancement at some point. > Thanks again.
just so we're on the same page, oracle has no release, so if we are doing this: begin_nested() commit() begin_nested() commit() begin_nested() commit() the ora conversation is SAVEPOINT x SAVEPOIINT y SAVEPOINT z i.e. cheaper to reuse the same savepoint since we aren't rolling back to "y" or "x". in engine/base.py, seems like we would add logic to the "__savepoint_seq" counter to achieve this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
