Hello.
I think it is a weird behavior. I've reported a bug: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=9511 Bob O'Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I try to read table 'b' after locking table 'a', I expect to get > the error message "Table 'b' was not locked with LOCK TABLES". > However, if my query that accesses table b is stored in the query > cache, I don't get the error. This causes a problem in the following > scenario: > > User 1: > > LOCK TABLES a > SELECT SQL_CACHE COUNT(*) FROM b > (assume it was already cached) > > User 2: > > INSERT b VALUES('value'); > SELECT SQL_CACHE COUNT(*) FROM b > (the SELECT puts the query back into the cache) > > User 1: > > SELECT SQL_CACHE COUNT(*) FROM b > (now he gets a different result) > UNLOCK TABLES > > User 1 thinks that everything he's doing is safe inside of an > "emulated transaction". But the data in table b has changed between > the LOCK and the UNLOCK, and User 1 isn't notified that he is doing > anything wrong. > > I think an appropriate fix would be to force User 1 to lock table b > even though the results of that query are stored in the query cache. > Is this possible? > > Thanks, > -Bob > -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita This email is sponsored by Ensita.NET http://www.ensita.net/ __ ___ ___ ____ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Gleb Paharenko / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.NET <___/ www.mysql.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
