On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Romy wrote: > On Mar 2, 6:50 am, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: >>> WRT your 5 insert example, what's wrong w/ explicitly marking those >>> single logical units inside a BEGIN ... COMMIT while running >>> autocommit ? >> >> If they are truly unrelated things, then yes there's nothing logically wrong >> with them being in separate transactions. >> [snip] >> Then there's just the basic nature of what using a transaction means. Your >> third operation fails, the request throws an error. What ever you changed >> in the first two operations succeeds and remains permanent. A lot of apps >> are not OK with that, certainly not any I write. > > I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to wrapping > multiple statements in a single BEGIN / COMMIT, when necessary while > running autocommit.
oh - well yes, the "real" use case for "autocommit" is that your application or framework is doing its own begin() and a rollback()/commit() at the end. "autocommit=True" allows the begin() to be denoted by the framework instead of upon first usage by the Session. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
