At 2010-09-01 17:03, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Maciej Jaros<[email protected]> wrote: >> I think it still should be conscious decision and so those functions >> could use their first... hm... second parameter as the transaction name. >> For MS SQL you can simply use BEGIN TRANSACTION [name] (I think it would >> be more natural), for MySQL I guess savepoints should be used. > I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting some > solution where commit() does not actually always commit the current > transaction? If so, as I said, this is a problem because it will > cause locks to be held for much too long in some cases. Not exactly. If you know you can and should commit transaction called for example "article_update" then it's OK. If you want to commit "image_insert_and_update" then it's OK too. If you are making a commit for everything that is started then it doesn't seem OK as pointed out by Platonides in his example.
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
