Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] odb: transparently handle common transaction behavior

From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 4, 2026, 10:34 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZT_7o_YquQ_mAg6sn=gq0Rx4Tga4vNsVsPt3jCUh=3tzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260203001002.2500198-5-jltobler@gmail.com>

Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> A new ODB transaction is created and returned via
> `odb_transaction_begin()` and stored in the ODB. Only a single
> transaction may be pending at a time. If the ODB already has a
> transaction, the function is expected to return NULL. Similarly, when
> committing a transaction via `odb_transaction_commit()` the transaction
> being committed must match the pending transaction and upon commit reset
> the ODB transaction to NULL.
>

But isn't this merely a limitation of the current implementation of the files transactions? Couldn't a potential ODB source support parallel transactions where this might no longer hold?

> These behaviors apply regardless of the ODB transaction implementation.
> Move the corresponding logic into `odb_transaction_{begin,commit}()`
> accordingly.
>

[snip]