Re: changing the isolation level

From: Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bortel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:40:17 +0100
Message-ID: <eogokt$62e$1@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>

Marten Lehmann schreef:
[snip]
> Think of a script, that generates invoices montly. Lets say you have a
> average volume of $1000 dollar. So if a run of the script in the next
> month just returns a volume of $200 you can be pretty sure, that
> something has gone wrong. But if you cannot see this until you confirmed
> all the stuff, then it is too late to revoke it.
[snip]

I did when I replied the concept of transaction was misunderstood. Take your example:

Step 1): check if account_from has enough $$ (account_from - amount >0)
Step 2): transfer the amount to account_to (which happens to be mine...)
Step 3): repeat steps 1 & 2 x times; different amounts, same account,

  of course :), until step1 fails.
Step 4) rollback.

Now - what would you like to be the outcome of that? I would very much like to see my transfers failed due to insufficient funding, and my balance to be untouched.

In your scenario, after step 2 I have your money available! I can swiftly transfer that to my secret swiss account (so secret even I forgot about it).

Who's gonna end up paying for that?

Bottom line: your application needs a major rewrite. Or stick with bye-bye-Base

-- 
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...

Received on Mon Jan 15 2007 - 02:40:17 CST