On 11/2/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/2/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the proposal is implemented > > BEGIN > > > > savepoint s1; > > > > some DML operations > > > > get current inventory2 = select ... > > > > if current inventory2 is < fixed size > > current inventory1 = select .. as of savepoint s1; > > END > > > > Do you see the difference? > > Yes, a completely non-standard and somewhat unusual feature. What I > don't see is why you're wasting time pushing this frankly obscure idea > for time-travel, "only within a transaction". Why not just go all out > and suggest re-adding time-travel completely.
I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features only a time-stamp based database can implement. I think database standards were formed during the time, when the data consistency was provided with Lock based mechanisms. And moreover i have already committed on the indexes with snapshot and i am still waiting for its approval from hackers. If that does go through, then i need to work on the reverse mapping hash tables, which is really a long task. So i may not be able to take up time-travel now. -- > Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 > EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 > 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ > -- Thanks, Gokul. CertoSQL Project, Allied Solution Group. (www.alliedgroups.com)
