Re: Re:LOCK TABLES x COMMIT/ROLLBACK

At 11:51 14/2/2001 +1300, Phil Daintree wrote:

This also troubles me i have read and read the docs on this. It seems that Lock tables prevents other threads interfering with your transaction your inserts will not be compromised by another thread deleting or updating data inconsistent with your SQL. The snag for me is that all obscure input from the user and every other eventuality has to be trapped prior to avoid sending dud SQL to MySQL, other wise the inserts/updates will fail. The TO DO list talks about atomic inserts/updates which would solve my problems ie they all happen or all do NOT happen. If MySQL can do this then I don't care about rollback. I would dearly like to use the fast tables rather than compromise speed using DBD tables but as I see it we are stuck with them or Postgres until the atomic updates code is completed. Be interested to know if anyone has got atomic updates sorted.

tomorrow I'll try to compile BDB, in my Win9x... and get it to work... if it does REAL transaction than I can develop nicely with mysql... I'll let u know... ____________________________ . Christian Dechery (lemming) . http://www.tanamesa.com.br . Gaita-L Owner / Web Developer