Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > With this we'll either be using a regular transaction or a batch update > transaction. This helps cleanup some code which is no longer needed as > we'll now always have some type of 'ref_transaction' object being > propagated. Great. From the above description, I imagined that the change involved would be removal of all "update one by one" code paths, and addition of a new line to set one bit in the transaction object that says "this is not the usual all-or-none transaction but is a best-effort batch", but it does not seem to lose as many lines as I hoped ;-) But still, conceptually this change should simplify the things quite a bit.
