On 11/2/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007@gmail.com> wrote: > If the proposal is implemented > BEGIN > > savepoint s1; > > some DML operations > > get current inventory2 = select ... > > if current inventory2 is < fixed size > current inventory1 = select .. as of savepoint s1; > END > > Do you see the difference?
Yes, a completely non-standard and somewhat unusual feature. What I don't see is why you're wasting time pushing this frankly obscure idea for time-travel, "only within a transaction". Why not just go all out and suggest re-adding time-travel completely.
I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features only a time-stamp based database can implement. I think database standards were formed during the time, when the data consistency was provided with Lock based mechanisms. And moreover i have already committed on the indexes with snapshot and i am still waiting for its approval from hackers. If that does go through, then i need to work on the reverse mapping hash tables, which is really a long task. So i may not be able to take up time-travel now.
