New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 843769 link

Starred by 4 users

Issue metadata

Status: Available
Owner: ----
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Feature



Sign in to add a comment

IndexedDb should support transactions without auto-committing

Project Member Reported by rjfioravanti@google.com, May 16 2018

Issue description

Usage of IndexedDb in some scenarios is really challenging due to auto-committing transactions. Developers should be given the flexibility to choose when to commit transactions. 

The "New Gmail" offline feature could use this capability as one path to use IndexedDb more directly which would be very good for performance and memory usage. In the new Gmail application logic, we have many scenarios where we need to do large transactions. We also have code that will automatically yield execution when lots of work is happening so that the browser can handle other events to avoid UI jankiness. Obviously this is completely incompatible with auto-committing transactions. 
 

Comment 1 by dpa...@chromium.org, May 18 2018

Cc: arthurhsu@chromium.org dpa...@chromium.org
Components: Blink>Storage>IndexedDB

Comment 2 by jsb...@chromium.org, May 18 2018

Labels: -Type-Bug Type-Feature

Comment 3 by dmu...@chromium.org, May 25 2018

Cc: jsb...@chromium.org
Sounds like the waitUntil idea - adding josh, who thinks about this more than me.

From what I remember, we had a lot of trouble getting people to agree about this feature.

However, we have a lot of support / approval for the commit() call, which has info here:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=843698
and this is a step in the right direction towards letting devs control commit time.
It sounds like you are suggesting to only pursue the commit() change at this time? From my perspective there is no reason why they both can't be pursued in parallel, or together as a single spec-change. Can somebody think about starting to move on this now so that as a developer I could have a chance of using it in a year
Any thoughts on #4?
ping again
Owner: dmu...@chromium.org
dmurph@ and others are planning to discuss this at TPAC in October 2018. 
Status: Available (was: Untriaged)
Cc: pwnall@chromium.org
Cc: dmu...@chromium.org
Owner: ----
Positive reception from TPAC. The existence of 'abort()' as an escape-hatch made people feel more comfortable with waitUntil.

Unassigning from me for now.

Sign in to add a comment