[odb-users] MS SQL rowversion

[Chew kk]

Hi Boris,

Noted. I'll CC'ed to odb-users mailing list. Can you send me the
pre-release binaries for windows x64?

Thanks,
Chew

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Boris Kolpackov
<boris at codesynthesis.com>wrote:

> Hi Chew,
>
> In the future please keep your replies CC'ed to the odb-users mailing
> list as discussed in the posting guidelines:
>
> http://www.codesynthesis.com/support/posting-guidelines.xhtml
>
>
> Chew kk <chew.on.it at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Yes. I'm serious about adopting ODB as I do not have a better
> alternative,
> > though I could go with QxOrm. However, QxOrm doesn't have a comprehensive
> > user guide. It is great to hear that ODB is supporting rowversion.
>
> It doesn't support it now but it will in the next release. In fact, I
> just finished adding this support. If you would like to try it before
> the final release (always a good idea), I can package you a pre-release.
>
>
> > On the point of MSSQL not necessarily incrementing the rowversion
> > sequentially, would that have any conflict on ODB's optimistic
> > concurrency?
>
> No, I've added a test and everything works fine.
>
>
> > Just a clarification. With the rowversion added, I'll be able to do
> > something like the following. Is that right?
> >
> > #pragma db object optimistic
> > class person
> > {
> > ...
> > #pragma db version type("ROWVERSION")
> > unsigned long version_;
> > };
>
> Yes, except that you will need to use unsigned long long (ROWVERSION
> is a 64-bit value).
>
>
> > I've another question concerning transaction. ODB didn't explicitly
> > indicate the isolation level. Is it using read committed by default? Is
> > there a way to set isolation level?
>
> Yes, the default is the SQL Server default (READ COMMITTED). While there
> is a way to set a custom isolation level now, it is not very convenient.
> I will add an argument to the odb::mssql::database constructors that will
> allow to specify an alternative value.
>
> Boris
>