Hi,
will I need "nested transactions" which - as I read - aren't implemented, yet ?
I have some objects that rely on each other. Each has a status like proposal, working, canceled.
table-A <--- table-B <--- table-C <--- table-D
Those are (1, OO) relationships,
A status change above gets cascaded down but not upwards.
If I try to cancel a table-A-record every "lower" record in B, C, D should be canceled, too, when the transaction is committed.
Since it is possible, that I cancel e.g. a table B object only its children should get updated but not table-A.
I thought somthing along this to cancel a type B object:
BEGIN BEGIN BEGIN UPDATE table-D END if no error UPDATE table-C END if no error UPDATE table-B END
Does this make sense and will it provide the necesary protection ?
I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Just wrap the whole lot in one transaction and it will either all work or all fail:
BEGIN UPDATE table_d ... UPDATE table_c ... UPDATE table_d ... COMMIT;
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
