apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH]: Introduce apr_dbd_transaction_rollback
Date Mon, 01 May 2006 00:38:37 GMT
On Sunday 30 April 2006 23:05, Chris Darroch wrote:

> > OK, I started working on this (skeleton of of the patch is ready), but
> > before I go any further, could you give me a hint on the semantics of
> > the above. What I'm not getting is APR_DBD_TRANS_COMMIT v.
> > APR_DBD_TRANS_COMMIT_ON_SUCCESS. Isn't that the same? I mean, you can't
> > forcefully commit anything - the database won't take it.

There's rather more than that: after any failed operation within
a transaction, apr_dbd assumes transaction failure and declines
to attempt any further ops, without reference to the backend.


> > Or is there something I missed here...
>    Well, this may not make sense, but what I was thinking was
> that most drivers currently seem to decide whether to rollback
> or commit based on whether some errors have occurred in other
> calls and an internal flag has been set.  For example, from pgsql:
>         if (trans->errnum) {
>             trans->errnum = 0;
>             res = PQexec(trans->handle->conn, "ROLLBACK");
>         }
>         else {
>             res = PQexec(trans->handle->conn, "COMMIT");
>         }


>    What I was thinking was that this is the COMMIT_ON_SUCCESS
> default logic.  ROLLBACK obviously forces a rollback.  COMMIT
> would attempt a DB commit regardless of whether the driver
> had flagged anything in previously calls.  So, like this:

Bearing in mind the above, under what circumstances would
that be meaningful?  It's predicated on an assumption that
we have recoverable errors within a transaction.  But apr_dbd
doesn't support that (except insofar as a driver may correct
errors within its black box).  Or am I missing something?

>     switch (trans->mode) {
>             res = PQexec(trans->handle->conn, "COMMIT");
>             break;

The only usage case I can see where that would make sense is
immediately after an error return, to perform some error-correction
then commit.  But any such error-correction would necessarily
take you outside the apr_dbd layer and into direct ops on the
native handle.  So having apr_dbd support the commit seems
to have little point, AFAICS.

>             if (trans->errnum) {
>                 trans->errnum = 0;
>                 res = PQexec(trans->handle->conn, "ROLLBACK");
>             } else
>                 res = PQexec(trans->handle->conn, "COMMIT");
>             break;
>             res = PQexec(trans->handle->conn, "ROLLBACK");
>             break;
>     }

That's fine.

>    That's just a quick sketch ... if that's dumb, by all means
> do something else!  I should be able to focus on this a bit
> next week, as I said, if that helps any.  Cheers,

I did express a preference before, but it's not a strong one.
I would also accept Bojan's original patch (simply add
apr_dbd_transaction_rollback to the API), or your scheme
outlined here if you can convince me force-commit has a role.

Nick Kew

View raw message