Re: Proposal: Select ... AS OF Savepoint

On 11/2/07, Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > If the proposal is implemented
> > BEGIN
> >
> > savepoint s1;
> >
> > some DML operations
> >
> > get current inventory2 = select ...
> >
> > if current inventory2 is < fixed size
> > current inventory1 = select .. as of savepoint s1;
> > END
> >
> > Do you see the difference?
>
> Yes, a completely non-standard and somewhat unusual feature. What I
> don't see is why you're wasting time pushing this frankly obscure idea
> for time-travel, "only within a transaction". Why not just go all out
> and suggest re-adding time-travel completely.

I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is fairly easy
to implement. I think these are some of the features only a time-stamp based
database can implement. I think database standards were formed during the
time, when the data consistency was provided with Lock based mechanisms. And
moreover i have already committed on the indexes with snapshot and i am
still waiting for its approval from hackers. If that does go through, then i
need to work on the reverse mapping hash tables, which is really a long
task. So i may not be able to take up time-travel now.

--
> Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
> EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
> 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah(dot)harris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
>

--
Thanks,
Gokul.
CertoSQL Project,
Allied Solution Group.
(www.alliedgroups.com)