List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Kevin Lewis Date:March 31 2009 2:27pm
Subject:statement-level atomicity
View as plain text  

Could you add a reference to

about what you mean by 'statement-level atomicity'?  I think that you 
may be using a broader definition that is necessary.

In my view the only thing required is that all changes within a SQL 
statement either commit together or none at all.  No client should ever 
see part of a change and not the rest.

But I think you are suggesting in this report that SQL statements must 
always act on the database as if there were no other changes happening 
at the same time.  Certainly, READ COMMITTED transactions cannot act 
this way.  They pick up changes from others in the middle, and if a 
record it had read but not locked gets deleted, "can't find record" 
errors WILL occur.

It may be argued that "can't find record" errors are a nuisance during 
REPEATABLE READ transactions, but I am not sure they indicate a failure 
of statement-level atomicity.


statement-level atomicityKevin Lewis31 Mar
  • Re: statement-level atomicityAnn W. Harrison31 Mar
Re: statement-level atomicityPhilip Stoev31 Mar
  • Re: statement-level atomicityKevin Lewis31 Mar
  • Re: statement-level atomicityJim Starkey31 Mar
    • Re: statement-level atomicityAnn W. Harrison1 Apr