> > From: "Ann W. Harrison"
> > At 12:48 PM 5/28/2004, Ivan Prenosil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would expect sub-transactions to see everything their
> > > > parent transaction(s) did up until the spawning point,
> > > > and I would expect parent transactions to see everything
> > > > their sub-transactions have done once they've committed
> > > > (rejoining the parent, thus acting as if the parent has performed
> > > > those actions directly)
> > >
> > >... which would brake the basic behaviour of snapshot transactions.
> > >The same row read twice could return different values if the
sub-transaction
> > >updated that row and committed in between.
> >
> > I don't know whether that's true or not. Certainly, a transaction
> > sees different values in records it updates. If the subtransaction
> > is really part of the parent, then that's consistent... sort of...
>
> Then I would expect the changes be visible even before subtrans. commits.
>
> But it does not matter since I have no idea what the whole thing could be
good for:-)
To build transactionable objects which you can use in another transact
objects.
Alexander
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> E1-I: This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
UML's antivirus scanning services.
>
>
>