Manuel Lemos wrote:
Hello,
on 04/27/2005 11:49 AM Oskar said the following:
Ok. So the idea of splitting one transaction into two steps of a
script is
wrong?
Yes, it is not possible to achive that. What happens is that first
access to script is handled by one Web server process or thread and you
cannot assure that the second access will be handled by the same Web
process or server to finish the same transaction that was started.
some thoughts:
if he ran the the page/script on a seperate webserver (configured to
run one process), especially for this one task - to which only one
person [c|w]ould connect - then it would be technically doable no?
Furthermore, you should never leave a transaction open that you cannot
guarantee that it will finished in a very short notice, otherwise it may
say database server is in the US, and connecting server (that makes use of transactions)
is in Europe... how are you going to guarantee that the connecting server will never
suffer network or power loss midway thru a transaction? (I'd put money on the
fact that the same thing has crossed the minds of more than one database engine
developer.)
block the access to the whole database forever.
thats a broad statement. a transaction doesn't have to block access per definition,
and its not unfeasable to suggest that some database engines may account for the
possibility for 'hung' transaction in some kind of garbage collection routine...?
--
PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
