Subject | RE: [ib-support] Re: mass inserts |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2002-04-09T19:03:23Z |
At 10:47 AM 4/9/2002 -0700, Reggie White wrote:
leaving record versions in the database, marked with the
id of a transaction that failed. As an optimization, someone
added the ability for a transaction to do its own rollback,
which involves keeping a list of changed records. If the
transaction is told to rollback, it backs out its own changes
rather than waiting for someone else to stumble over them
and clean them up. The old way still works - has to because
not all rollbacks are intentional.
GBAK, for example, uses isc_tpb_no_auto_undo when restoring
databases.
Regards,
Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.
>What does the isc_tpb_no_auto_undo flag really do?Rollback will work fine, but in the old fashioned way -
>Does it mean that the database will not have a automatic rollback in case of
>a problem?
leaving record versions in the database, marked with the
id of a transaction that failed. As an optimization, someone
added the ability for a transaction to do its own rollback,
which involves keeping a list of changed records. If the
transaction is told to rollback, it backs out its own changes
rather than waiting for someone else to stumble over them
and clean them up. The old way still works - has to because
not all rollbacks are intentional.
GBAK, for example, uses isc_tpb_no_auto_undo when restoring
databases.
Regards,
Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.