On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 04:13:01PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > After re-examining the original code, it looks like it was not actually > vulnerable to a race condition! (it does the UPDATE, then if not found > will do an INSERT, and handle unique violation with a repeat of the same > UPDATE - i.e three DML statements, which are enough to handle the race > in this case).
What happens if someone deletes the row between the failed insert and the second update? :) AFAICT, example 36-1 is the only way to handle this without creating a race condition. > However Jim's change handles the race needing only two DML statements in > a loop, which seems much more elegant! In addition it provides a nice > example of the 'merge' style code shown in e.g 36-1. What's SOP here... should I ping someone to let them know this patch should be committed now that those who care are happy with it? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
