The counter idea kind of reminds of what I have in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/16696/ .
I think the whole implicit commit issue is definitely pretty annoying and I wish there was a reasonable way to address it without reasonable backwards compatibility. rollback() is the hard case to deal with (I ended up not even having it in that gerrit patch). In general callers should avoid using rollback() for detecting problems or race conditions. They should be checked up front. I put some comments about this in the tiny IDBAccessObject interface a while ago. This avoids complexity with "what if someone rollback". It also avoid mysql undo segment usage (though rollback is faster in PG). SAVEPOINTs are useful if we really need to support people rollback transactions *and* we need nested transaction support. I think they could be made to work, but I'm not sold on their necessity for any use cases we have. -- View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/Nested-database-transactions-tp4983700p4983732.html Sent from the Wikipedia Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
