On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:18:01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Semig)
wrote:
>0. User A loads Record R.
>1. User B loads Record R.
>2. User B edits and saves Record R.
> (Saving involves starting a transaction, retrieving R from the DB,
>comparing the values with the original values to make sure it is
> the same record, and then the UPDATE and then commiting the
> transaction).
>3. User A edits and saves Record R.
> (Saving involves starting a transaction, retrieving R from the DB,
>comparing the values with the original values to make sure it is
> the same record, and when it's not, rolling back the transaction and
> notifying the user that the record has already been modified by
> another user or process).
thanks. that was one of the alternatives i'd been considering.
heh, i was trying to avoid the complexity. after all, if the database
already has locking and data consistency built-in, why reinvent
the wheel, right? but that denial of service thing is a problem
(and it would be a SELF-denial-of-service :). thanks for voting
for this alternative. i'll wait a few days for others to comment
and maybe provide alternatives before committing to one
approach :).
tiger
--
PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
