I agree. It sounds like you could use plain repeatable read isolation
transactions. If someone else is modifying those rows you get an older
version from when your transaction was started. No need for skipping
anything.
Martijn Tonies wrote:
I am using InnoDB only.
But, it's not skipping locked rows.
Ditto that here.
Actually, I consider that a good thing... What's the point in leaving
out rows that have not been modified yet but are about to be updated?
The transaction that has the rows locked might as well be rolled back.
The data that is visible is the data as available at that moment.
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
