On Jul 26, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> Actually a serializable transaction doesn't even seem a too bad
> solution... but I just would like to understand better how to manage
> this situation so that I could make it as simple as possible AND
> lower as much as possible the chances that the transaction will have
> to be rolled back.
This sounds exactly what serialized transactions are for. And I would
certainly promote simplicity over worrying about things like rollback
performance.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
