On 26.09.2012 12:06, Asher Feldman wrote: > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012, Daniel Kinzler wrote: >> >> I see your point. But if we have the choice between lock contention and >> silent >> data loss, which is better? > > > This isn't really a choice - by default, when a statement in mysql hits a > lock timeout, it is rolled back but the transaction it's in is not.
Uh. That sounds evil and breaks the A in ACID, no? Why isn't the entire transaction rolled back in such a case? > That > can also lead to data loss via partial writes in real world cases if not > properly accounted for by the application. How could we detect such a case? > That doesn't mean that we should give up on consistancy or > that we shouldn't try to do better, but not in exchange for more lock > contention. Well, improving consistency and avoiding data loss is going to be hard without the use of locks... how do you propose to do that? -- daniel _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
