Matt Sergeant writes:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Michael Peppler wrote:
>
> > Matt Sergeant writes:
> > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Vladislav Safronov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok. I think, the answers clear the problem, but I have yet more question.
> > > >
> > > > What can you say about this code? is it ok (overwriting previous handle)?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Well it depends on the DBMS. For example Sybase might not like it if you
> > > haven't read everything from the $sth first - it will bite you in the bum
> > > with locks. Others will be fine. So just be careful...
> >
> > Actually what happens with Sybase is this:
> >
> > If $sth has pending results when prepare() is called DBD::Sybase opens
> > a new connection (because it sees that the $dbh already has an active
> > $sth). When the return value from prepare() is assigned to $sth the
> > DESTROY method for the old $sth is called, which cancels the previous
> > query.
> >
> > So I think that you *should* be safe from deadlocks, but the problem
> > will be getting additional connections created, which is not really
> > optimal.
>
> Isn't there something different happening when AutoCommit = 0 though?
If AutoCommit = 0 then you'll get a fatal error because DBD::Sybase
can't guarantee consistent rollback behavior accross multiple
connections (which is what happens in this case, even though the first
$sth gets destroyed before the second one gets executed).
Michael
--
Michael Peppler -||- Data Migrations Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -||- http://www.mbay.net/~mpeppler
Int. Sybase User Group -||- http://www.isug.com
Sybase on Linux mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
