On 16/01/2017 15:40, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > On 01/15/17 21:00, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > I like the suggestion in general but some details worth thinking more.
Sure. It's yet more an general idea than a proposal. What I like about it, it's much simple in relation to what we have now while fixing the problems. Another gray area is how to support AFTER DDL triggers, who are supposed to see changes in RDB$ tables. > If it will cause serious troubles - well, we can deny DDL in read > committed transactions. For me it's acceptable. > Returning to 'allow concurrent transactions to change the same objects'. > What if both transactions create same objects or any other phase 1 > conflict? > First committed wins? Yes. > PS. We had more or less same suggestion from Jim >10 years ago (well, no > word 'Virtual' was said that time) but it did not go out of generic > discussion phaze. I don't remember it. Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
