From: | Federico Di Gregorio <federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction control overhauling |
Date: | 2011-05-12 12:13:09 |
Message-ID: | 4DCBCED5.1010607@dndg.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | psycopg |
On 12/05/11 13:57, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> II. add a method conn.set_transaction(isolation_level=None,
>> > read_only=None, deferrable=None) allowing to change one or more of the
>> > transaction settings. Calling the method would terminate the current
>> > transaction and put the new settings in place. Note that there are
>> > several ways for implementing this:
> Ugh. Big -1 on the "terminate current transaction". First of all, I
> *assume* you mean ROLLBACK and not COMMIT. But even so, I think it's a
> much better idea to raise a local exception when trying to change it
> while inside a transaction.
>
That makes sense. Currently psycopg keeps track of the current
transaction level to be able to decide if to terminare the transaction
(with a ROLLBACK) or not. But that's less than optimal because the
result of set_transaction_isolation() depends both on internal state and
issued queries. Much much better to just raise an exception if inside a
transaction.
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it
Studio Associato Di Nunzio e Di Gregorio http://dndg.it
The only thing I see is if you are pumping so much data into the
database all the time when do you expect to look at it?
-- Charlie Clark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2011-05-12 12:52:47 | Re: Transaction control overhauling |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-05-12 11:57:02 | Re: Transaction control overhauling |