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.
> 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.