>From the manual:
>While log on and off setting alone is reset at the end of the transaction so
>that one does not end up with logging disabled by accident, the row-by-row
>autocommit mode causes the setting to be permanent inside the calling
>connection or web request. That is, for a SQL client the setting stays in
>effect until changed or disconnected and for a web request it stays in effect
>until the request is completed.
http://docs.openlinksw.com/virtuoso/fn_log_enable/
If you want to determine whether the log is still disabled at a point in
time then this is one round-about way of doing it:
>Attempt to disable transaction log that is disabled already result in an
>error. If the second parameter is passed and it is not equal to zero then the
>error is suppressed (and it's still possible to turn on or off autocommit).
Set an exception handler to catch that error and set a flag to indicate
that the log was previously disabled. If there's no error/flag set then
proceed to re-enable the log.
There might be better ways of doing it but that should work.
--
Regards,
Quentin Serrurier.
GuidingHand.Solutions
On 2017-02-22 02:01, Davis, Daniel (NIH/NLM) [C] wrote:
> I am not sure I understand the scope of the log_enable() procedure. If I call
> log_enable(2,1); in a stored procedure, I am sure that it will affect the
> entire connection, but, will it affect other connections as well. Would it,
> for instance, persist until reboot and affect other connections? How can I
> verify this - is there any command that will output the current transaction
> isolation level?
>
> Also, I have an inexplicable situation where my stored procedure loads a
> dataset in NTriples format into a graph, and then does some processing on
> that dataset. It is important for the processing that the graph be empty at
> the beginning, e.g. before the load. Try as I might, I seem to end-up in
> situations where the graph is not-empty, and I believe that this may be some
> interaction between log_enable() and the delete statement. I would think
> naively that log_enable(2,1); would have no effect on the serialization of
> row-level operations *IN THE SAME CONNECTION*, but perhaps I misunderstand.
>
> Dan Davis, Systems/Applications Architect (Contractor),
>
> Office of Computer and Communications Systems,
>
> National Library of Medicine, NIH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot [1]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Virtuoso-users mailing list
> Virtuoso-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/virtuoso-users [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://sdm.link/slashdot
[2] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/virtuoso-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Virtuoso-users mailing list
Virtuoso-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/virtuoso-users
