[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API

On Oct 17, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Adam Roben wrote:

> I think the conversation in this thread has gotten a little muddled.  
> The two main issues I see being discussed are:
> 1. Should single SQL statements be wrapped in a transaction?
> 2. Should the SQL API support explicit transactions (and therefore a  
> way to not fall into implicit transactions)?
> It sounds like Brady is mostly concerned about (1), while Scott is  
> mostly concerned about (2). I think it would be helpful to discuss  
> these as separate issues.

I got these two issues a little entangled by mentioning that I think a  
performance cost for single statements would be the main practical  
reason to have both transactioned and transactionless variants of the  
API. The fact that the difference is 1-2% for a simple query and is  
likely to go far the other way for more complex operations makes me  
think this probably is important only in extreme cases.

I'm not sure what other reasons Scott sees for (2). I do think it  
would aid authoring clarity to have the word "transaction" in the API,  
even if the model of how they are managed is much the same as  
currently (so you can't forget to close it) and even if a  
transactionless API is not added.


Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 11:58:57 UTC