-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 209
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Transaction support #424
Transaction support #424
Conversation
…as unused (used for async index creation, which we don't support at the moment)
…moved a spurious debug from a test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
// This is a bit odd, but because this setup doesn't interact with the engine.Query path, we need to do transaction | ||
// management here, instead. If we don't, then any Query-based setup will wipe out our work by starting a new | ||
// transaction without committing the work done so far. | ||
// The secondary foo database doesn't have this problem because we don't mix and match query and non-query setup |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've wondered if we shouldn't refactor testdata
to just query the harness
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue is that then we couldn't run the engine tests on read only database implementations, so it's worth some amount of futzing to support
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually now that I'm saying that, it's already not true, they have to implement sql.InsertableTable at a minimum already
This change: