From: | Tyler MacDonald <tyler(at)yi(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen(dot)wiedmann(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul DuBois <paul(at)snake(dot)net>, dbi-users(at)perl(dot)org, perl(at)lists(dot)mysql(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: undefined behaviour for sub-transactions? |
Date: | 2005-11-30 21:31:30 |
Message-ID: | 20051130213130.GE19140@yi.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> The inconvenience I'll grant, but the non-standard claim I think
> needs some justification. When the database encounters an error in a
> transaction, it is supposed to report an error. An error in a
> transaction causes the whole transaction to fail: that's what the
> atomicity rule of ACID means, I think. I actually am sort of
> unconvinced that SQLite's transactions are real ones -- I just did
> some playing around with it, and it seems that any error allows you
> to commit anyway. Certainly, MySQL's support of transactions is
> occasionally pretty dodgy, unless you use the strict mode.
Either way the end result is that some database drivers poison a
transaction if there's any error, others are selective about which errors
are fatal and which are not, and still others just don't care at all.
The end goal of DBIx::Transaction is to hide these differences from
the application so that transactions behave in a consistent way despite what
driver or driver options you're using, so on that note I've uploaded
DBIx-Transaction-0.002 to PAUSE, which will take the "lowest common
denominator", having any erronious query poison the entire transaction.
> But it's worth knowing that in Pg 8.1 and later, you can wrap such
> things in a subtransaction and get out of it that way.
Nifty! :)
Cheers,
Tyler
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-11-30 21:44:28 | Re: undefined behaviour for sub-transactions? |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2005-11-30 21:19:18 | Re: undefined behaviour for sub-transactions? |