Re: Lost updates vs resumable connections/transactions

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:

> On 12/17/2004 12:04 PM, Jens Lechtenboerger wrote:
>
>> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> I don't think this idea has much of a chance to make it into the
>>> source tree.
>> I'm disappointed, though, and summarize:
>> PostgreSQL transactions cannot be used naturally with CGI/PHP, and
>> virtually every web application out there is prone to lost updates.
>
> As said, open transactions with DB locks during user interaction are a known
> bad idea for every sort of application. That together with the scaling
> problems is IMHO reason enough not to implement something that is designed to
> avoid proper application side advisory locks.

After writing my last mail, I was riding my bicycle through the rain
and thought about the following additional application areas for an
API extension:

Grid computing: I might want to transfer a transaction from an
overloaded client node to another node. Currently, this is not
possible.

Web services: I might want to compose an atomic service out of
component services over a single database. In contrast to my
previous web example, in this scenario there needn't be user
interaction between the individual service invocations.

> Get used to put reasonable amounts of your business logic into stored
> procedures on the database side and you will find that dealing with advisory
> locks is not as painfull as it looks like. Doing it all with PHP coding alone,
> where a single business process is scattered over a input form flow dictated
> number of source files is neither as easy, nor as maintainable.

There is a fundamental problem. It's not about "scattered" business
processes but about the very simple "look and edit" process that is
not supported.

Jens