> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:33:19AM -0700, Dr NoName
> wrote:
>
> > A single client should not be able to bring the
> entire
> > database down. The DB should recognize that the
> client
> > went down and roll back the transaction. That
> would be
> > the ideal solution. Anything else we can do to
> remedy
> > the situation?
>
> Now wait just a second. The database is not down at
> all just because
> somebody left a transaction open. The real problem
> is that that open
> transaction is having some resources locked, right?
right, but that's effectively the same thing: users
cannot write to the database and in some cases can't
even read from it.
> I guess the real answer is not to leave transactions
> open. If you do
> that by design, say because the app shows a data
> modification window,
> and keeps a transaction open just to be able to save
> the changes later,
> then you really need to rethink your app design.
There is no user interaction in the middle of a
transaction. But there are other things we have to do
(file system I/O, heavy processing, etc.) Those
operations really do need to be interleaved with the
DB writes.
thanks,
Eugene
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com