There is not much to argue, when your point is based on a misunderstanding.
> You nest transactional statements, not the calls to atomic. The happy-path for an atomic is that it will commit; it should be obvious a priori that something that commits cannot be in the codepath that can be rolled back.
This makes absolutely no sense with my above correction.
There is not much to argue, when your point is based on a misunderstanding.
> You nest transactional statements, not the calls to atomic. The happy-path for an atomic is that it will commit; it should be obvious a priori that something that commits cannot be in the codepath that can be rolled back.
This makes absolutely no sense with my above correction.