Hello, W! Monday, January 7, 2013, 2:33:30 AM, you wrote:
WO> Hello everybody, I have a question: WO> - Transaction 510 inserts a row WO> - Transaction 510 commit ok, data committed. WO> - Transaction 526 start WO> - Transaction 526 updates the row inserted by transaction 510 well, row "locked" by update made by transaction 526. WO> - Transaction 535 start WO> - Transaction 535 updates the row inserted by transaction 510 no, transaction 535 will get error "deadlock", because version created by transaction 526 is not committed or rolled back yet. WO> - Transaction 542 start WO> - Transaction 542 updates the row inserted by transaction 510 NO. Same reason that I noted before. WO> 1. Should be the order for the following commits: 526, 535, 542? NO. WO> 2. Or in some cases it could be 542, 535, 526? NO. WO> If the answer is 1. it means that if transaction 526 hangs up will avoid WO> transactions 535 and 542 to finish. Am I right? No transaction can overwrite version, created by any transaction that modified some record and has not committed or rolled back changes. -- Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com
