Chris Withers wrote at 2003-10-15 12:49 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2003-10-8 21:22 +0100:
Casey Duncan wrote:
I would argue that a better plan would be to only use _v_ vars for completely disposable data only. The application should expect that this values will be gone at any random time, not just at transaction boundaries.
I agree with this. How do we go about find code that uses the assumption that _v_ stuff won't change unless it's at a transaction boundary?
This will invalidate many current uses:
* use for database connections
Not really, I would expect a DA to just re-connect if it got garbage collected...
Did you think about it? It means that what should be one transaction becomes two. If it were a single transaction, the second part would be able to see the effects of the first part. This is not the case with two distinct transactions. Analysing such behaviour is a nightmare... Dieter