[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API
mjs at apple.com
Wed Oct 17 11:58:57 PDT 2007
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.
More information about the whatwg