Dear Alex, > it seems you didn't wrap your code into explicit transaction.
Thanks for your quick analysis. > but if you do not start your transactions explicitly, enclosing as many > operations as posible, global-sync-cache absolutely makes no sense -- it > takes more effort to synchornize changes than to actually load value from > database, if that's just a single value. > so, maybe, if cache is set into global sync mode, it should signal error if > there is no explicit transactions -- because that would be misuse of global > sync cache, leading to significant overhead. Can you explain this in a bit more detail? > or you think it makes sense to allow such behaviour? it might make sense in > REPL, for example.. I put transactions only in an explicit transaction block if it makes sense to me, i.e. if there are several successive operations. Why would I put a single operation into a WITH-TRANSACTION block? It clutters the code. And for prototyping/debugging (either directly from the REPL or in files) I can live with implicit txns all the time (except where I need to guarantee ACID). Leslie _______________________________________________ elephant-devel site list elephant-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
