To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Lost updates vs resumable connections/transactions
References: <Pine.A41.4.58.0412091641060.68588@zivunix.uni-muenster.de>
	<41C06961.8020406@Yahoo.com> <87is73qrde.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
From: Jens Lechtenboerger <lechten@wi.uni-muenster.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:52:49 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87is73qrde.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> (Greg Stark's message of "15
	Dec 2004 14:43:41 -0500")
Message-ID: <m2y8fyl58u.fsf@pcwi4002.uni-muenster.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:

> Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Even applications that have statefull enduser terminals (like SAP R/3 for
>> example) never allow an open transaction over user interaction. 
>
> I'm not sure using SAP as your paragon of design excellence is a wise choice
> here. From what I understand SAP implemented its own locking system because
> the database it was based on didn't offer any locking at all.
>
> But your basic point is sound. For a web site I would definitely avoid using
> anything like database locks and even avoid doing anything with application
> locks if possible.

Well, I don't necessarily have to use locks.  I want any form of
concurrency control that ensures serializability.  Optimistic
approaches would be fine as well.

> If you really really want to expose the database session state I think he's on
> the right track using SQLRelay. This would let him handle reconnecting a user
> with her session even if she's connecting to a different Apache process.

But why should I have SQLRelay between me and the database?
I don't plan to use any of its "real" features.  It would just be a
proxy with a known address that maintains a database connection.
Obviously, the database server itself has a known address and
maintains database connections...

Jens