On 13 December 2011 15:04, Slorg1 <slorg1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I guess I will troll a little here but it seems to me that the
implicit transactions are the issue.
What Galder suggested does makes sense( that you would want a failure
to put in the cache in some circumstances to have no incidence) but
some times if too many things are telling something does not make
sense and cannot be done right... maybe it just should not be (e.g.
implicit transactions).
I know you feel strongly about the implicit transactions.
Food for thought, I patched my version not to have them and I can tell
you it works great!
Interesting; couldn't you achieve the same disabling transactions?