Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Lost updates vs resumable connections/transactions

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Jens Lechtenbörger <lechtej(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>,pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Lost updates vs resumable connections/transactions
Date: 2004-12-15 19:43:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:

> Even applications that have statefull enduser terminals (like SAP R/3 for
> example) never allow an open transaction over user interaction. 

I'm not sure using SAP as your paragon of design excellence is a wise choice
here. From what I understand SAP implemented its own locking system because
the database it was based on didn't offer any locking at all.

But your basic point is sound. For a web site I would definitely avoid using
anything like database locks and even avoid doing anything with application
locks if possible.

If you really really want to expose the database session state I think he's on
the right track using SQLRelay. This would let him handle reconnecting a user
with her session even if she's connecting to a different Apache process.

I suspect the database wouldn't really be able to suspend a database
connection using any less memory than just keeping the entire backend process
with its session around anyways.


In response to


pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Jens LechtenboergerDate: 2004-12-15 19:57:48
Subject: Re: Lost updates vs resumable connections/transactions
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2004-12-15 17:06:46
Subject: Re: postgresql-7.4.5

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group