-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 150
Use transaction mechanism instead of explicit BEGIN/COMMIT #264
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Performance SummaryComparing base 303bb12 with head 1ee1c9b on microsoft/TypeScript@v4.9.5. For details see workflow artifacts. Note that performance is tested on the last commits with changes in Before
After
|
303bb12
to
b1a2d37
Compare
1ee1c9b
to
e234bf8
Compare
Performance SummaryComparing base b1a2d37 with head e234bf8 on microsoft/TypeScript@v4.9.5. For details see workflow artifacts. Note that performance is tested on the last commits with changes in Before
After
|
b1a2d37
to
799e504
Compare
088ba52
to
4d794f1
Compare
35c8747
to
230c1ae
Compare
4d794f1
to
afb98e0
Compare
Performance SummaryComparing base 230c1ae with head afb98e0 on microsoft/TypeScript@v4.9.5. For details see workflow artifacts. Note that performance is tested on the last commits with changes in Before
After
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this update, 👍
Per @dcreager's suggestion, this PR replaces explicit
BEGIN
/COMMIT
with thetransaction()
mechanism of Rusqlite. This should result in more robust behavior when errors occur, because the open transaction is rolled back as soon as the transaction object is dropped.