Re: [PATCH] Re: DB (Postgres & Transactions, unresolved issues)

[Sean Legassick]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:09:04AM -0700, John McNally wrote:
> I think that the transaction support should be general.  There is only one
> column in Turbine, at the moment, that requires a transaction on one
> database.  There should be a generic adaptor method supportsTransactions or
> hasTransactions.  In the code that updates this column we check for support
> and then use a transaction if it is ok.

If I understand you correctly, the problem with this is that it
introduces the overhead of a transaction when reading/writing the object
data column for *any* database that supports transactions, not just
Postgres. This seems undesirable to me.

-- 
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe:        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?:           [EMAIL PROTECTED]