[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2 |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:40:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:30:09AM +0800, Syan Tan wrote:
> mvcc means no read will block, but a write may block or abort, or if
> configured, block and timeout. you need to start the transaction at the
> time of reading for mvcc to detect a concurrent write.
> In the past, once a transaction aborted, all writes in the transaction also
> abort,
> without heirarchical transaction control. The problem is that getting an emr
> is
> a group fetch of many items that may get updated. What's needed is a a
> subcommit,
> that says it is trying to commit a couple for rows of a mass read within in a
> transaction,
> ( a subtransaction). Karsten really has implemented the only solution if you
> can't
> have compound transactions.
Yep. The question, however, is whether we need explicit
"select for update", too. Probably not, it seems.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Syan Tan, 2006/06/20
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2,
Karsten Hilbert <=
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Syan Tan, 2006/06/20
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, kittylitter, 2006/06/21
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Syan Tan, 2006/06/21
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Tim Churches, 2006/06/22
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Syan Tan, 2006/06/23
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Syan Tan, 2006/06/24
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Comments on 0.2, Tim Churches, 2006/06/24