| Subject | Re: [ib-support] Transaction and time keepping program |
|---|---|
| Author | David K. Trudgett |
| Post date | 2002-02-14T01:45:03Z |
On Thursday 2002-02-14 at 09:06:49 +0800, Frank Wang wrote:
better (must be to do with housekeeping, as someone mentioned).
On a non-technical note, if you're manually issuing SELECT statements,
and you normally type COMMIT when finished, you need to be extra
careful not to type COMMIT out of habit one day when you really meant
ROLLBACK! Oops...
That doesn't apply to automated applications, of course.
David Trudgett
> > Commit, don't rollback.Don't know the tehnicalities, but I've heard COMMIT is supposed to be
>
> This brings another question, so often we start a transaction just
> for look up tables, then rollback as there is nothing to be updated,
> which one is better, commit or rollback, and why?
better (must be to do with housekeeping, as someone mentioned).
On a non-technical note, if you're manually issuing SELECT statements,
and you normally type COMMIT when finished, you need to be extra
careful not to type COMMIT out of habit one day when you really meant
ROLLBACK! Oops...
That doesn't apply to automated applications, of course.
David Trudgett