Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch to support transactions with BLOBs for current CVS

> > First of all it will not break lo_creat, lo_unlink for sure.
>
> lo_creat depends on inv_create followed by inv_close; your patch
> proposed to disable both of those outside transaction blocks.
> lo_unlink depends on inv_drop, which ditto. Your patch therefore
> restricts lo_creat and lo_unlink to be done inside transaction blocks,
> which is a new and completely unnecessary restriction that will
> doubtless break many existing applications.

OK.As I already said we can remove checks from inv_create/inv_drop. They are
not needed there.

> > But I do not see any reasons why we not put lo_import, and lo_export in
> > TX. At least this will prevent other backends from reading partially
> > imported BLOBs...
>
> lo_import and lo_export always execute in a transaction, just like any
> other backend operation. There is no need to force them to be done in
> a transaction block. If you're not clear about this, perhaps you need
> to review the difference between transactions and transaction blocks.

Hmmm... Where can I read about it? At least which source/header?

--
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine

----------------------------------
E-Mail: dyp(at)perchine(dot)com
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------