Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?

Greg Stark wrote:

>Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
>
>
>
>>But database is not webserver. It is not suppose to handle tons of concurrent
>>requests. That is a fundamental difference.
>>
>>
>
>And in one fell swoop you've dismissed the entire OLTP database industry.
>
>Have you ever called a travel agent and had him or her look up a fare in the
>airline database within seconds? Ever placed an order over the telephone?
>Ever used a busy database-backed web site?
>
>
That situation is usually handled by means of a TP Monitor that keeps
open database connections ( e.g, CICS + DB2 ).

I think there is some confusion between "many concurrent connections +
short transactions" and "many connect / disconnect + short transactions"
in some of this discussion.

OLTP systems typically fall into the first case - perhaps because their
db products do not have fast connect / disconnect :-). Postgresql plus
some suitable middleware (e.g Php) will handle this configuration *with*
its current transaction model.

I think you are actually talking about the connect / disconnect speed
rather than the *transaction* model per se.

best wishes

Mark