[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sqlite-users
Subject:    Re: [sqlite] Nested transactions
From:       Simon Slavin <slavins () bigfraud ! org>
Date:       2013-11-23 23:57:03
Message-ID: B75E4648-66A9-4690-BBCA-78649C4CF4E6 () bigfraud ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On 23 Nov 2013, at 11:35pm, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:

> On 2013.11.23 7:20 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
> > Had the person who devised SQL thought it through, he'd have thought up \
> > savepoints instead of transactions and we wouldn't use transactions at all.
> 
> This is an interesting proposal, and makes a lot of sense to me, especially given \
> that savepoints today don't have the precondition of a "transaction" being active \
> to use them, so on their own "savepoint" is like a generalization of a \
> "transaction". -- Darren Duncan

My guess is that the engine would treat the outmost level of savepoint specially: \
that the outmost level of savepoint is equivalent to a transaction.

I sometimes work in a computer language (not available to the public, sorry) which \
allows a set of tasks to be divided up by criteria that the programmer can assign, or \
distributed among different processors as soon as one becomes free.  These things are \
conventional and have been done previously.  But this language can do it with 'if' \
tasks.  You can parcel up a test into two parts (e.g. one proof for even values, \
another for odd values; one for current records, another for each archive) and the \
test automatically terminates when the first answer of 'not true' is returned.  And \
the programming structure reminds me of how SQL does SAVEPOINTs.

Simon.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]