Re: Transaction logging without BEGIN WORK's

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, H wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@informix.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, H wrote: > >> Is what he saying is this [...] > >I don't understand this question. > I'm not sure I do either and I asked it :-)))) > > Er, let me try and think about this again. I think the question I was > trying to pose was this: that if the database is started with a > transaction log but the programs are not coded with BEGIN WORK's etc > then in the event of the computer crashing then the only option is to > ROLLFORWARD every transaction? Sort of. With OnLine, the recovery would happen automatically, but the database probably wouldn't really be self-consistent because each statement would be treated as a complete transaction so the recovery would roll forward the 3 statements that had completed (because they were complete), and would not know that they needed to be rolled back because the other 6 statements that should have occurred didn't. With SE, there are other problems if the sqlexec crashes. > You mention the need for a good recovery plan Jonathan. Given our > current circumstances, what plan do you think we should have in place. I don't think there is a simple plan that could work. It would have to be customized to your application, and it would be easier to do the BEGIN WORK work than to create the recovery. > I would like to implement a quick and easy solution that is more > resilient than we have until I have recoded the programs to include > BEGIN WORK's etc. I'd like to be able to fly to Mars for the weekend, but I don't think the technology is ready to let me do so. Sorry:-( Yours, Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com) #include <witticism.h> Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.60 -- http://www.perl.com/CPAN Informix IDN for D4GL & Linux -- http://www.informix.com/idn