bruce wrote:
hi..
i'm trying to understand if there's a difference/better reason for doing
transactions using either of the following psuedo approaches...
approach 1 does the commit inside the eval block, whereas approach 2 has the
commit outside the eval block... i've seen sample code with transactions
handled both ways...
approach 1:
eval
{
$dbh-do(do something);
# got this far means no errors
# commit
$dbh-commit();
};
# check errors/rollback
if ($@)
{
$dbh-rollback();
}
approach 2:
eval
{
$dbh-do(do something);
};
# check errors/rollback
if ($@)
{
$dbh-rollback();
}
else
{
# commit
$dbh-commit();
}
any comments/criticisms/thoughts/etc...
thanks...
-bruce
I think the commit needs to be inside the eval, because
thats when problems might arise. Also, I assume that you
at some point set AutoCommit = 0. I usually do transctions
like this:
sub test {
eval { $dbh-begin_work };
if ($@) {
print begin transaction failed: $@;
return;
}
eval {
.. do some stuf ..
$dbh-commit;
};
if ($@) {
eval { $dbh-rollback };
print transaction failed: $@;
} else {
print data committed successfully.\n;
}
}
hope this helps,
Mayuran.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
