----- Original Message ----- > From: "Baron Schwartz" <ba...@xaprb.com> > > Because it can be resolved by rolling back just one of them. Why > destroy ALL the work people are trying to accomplish, if you could > just throw away some of it?
What I fail to understand, Baron, is how there can be a deadlock here - both transactions seem to be hanging on a single-table, single-row update statement. Shouldn't the oldest transaction already have acquired the lock by the time the youngest came around; and shouldn't the youngest simply wait until the eldest finished it's update? Or is this a problem with the consistent view that I'm not seeing? -- Bier met grenadyn Is als mosterd by den wyn Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
