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

Rewindable cursors #55

Closed
inexorabletash opened this Issue Oct 7, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@inexorabletash
Member

inexorabletash commented Oct 7, 2015

@malibuzios

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@malibuzios

malibuzios Mar 22, 2016

One possible problem I see is that this would allow infinite transactions. E.g. one can move the cursor back and forth over two or more records forever in a loop.. (I don't mean this has to happen intentionally by the programmer - could just be some edge case that wasn't handled properly)

I got impression the original design idea was that transactions would be short-lived and auto-closing?

Anyway this kind of relates to some of my comments on #72, where I questioned whether all transactions are supposed to be finite by design? To reiterate - the logic was: if all transactions were guaranteed to be finite (I'm excluding open and close requests here) then a closePending flag would mean that a connection is predicted to terminate to within a finite amount of time.

I thought I'd mention that here as well?

malibuzios commented Mar 22, 2016

One possible problem I see is that this would allow infinite transactions. E.g. one can move the cursor back and forth over two or more records forever in a loop.. (I don't mean this has to happen intentionally by the programmer - could just be some edge case that wasn't handled properly)

I got impression the original design idea was that transactions would be short-lived and auto-closing?

Anyway this kind of relates to some of my comments on #72, where I questioned whether all transactions are supposed to be finite by design? To reiterate - the logic was: if all transactions were guaranteed to be finite (I'm excluding open and close requests here) then a closePending flag would mean that a connection is predicted to terminate to within a finite amount of time.

I thought I'd mention that here as well?

@inexorabletash

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@inexorabletash

inexorabletash Jun 8, 2016

Member

I clarified this with @malibuzios elsewhere (there was confusion about transaction lifetimes). This wouldn't add any new ability to extend the duration of a transaction.

But given the lack of further interest here, I'm going to close this out.

Member

inexorabletash commented Jun 8, 2016

I clarified this with @malibuzios elsewhere (there was confusion about transaction lifetimes). This wouldn't add any new ability to extend the duration of a transaction.

But given the lack of further interest here, I'm going to close this out.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment