Walter,
thank you very much for trying to explain that to me. Unfortunately I've got
lost somewhere in the middle of your response...
- If you are updating or deleting just one row, then no conflict can happen
with your settings. But if you want to update or delete several rows then
The main purposes of explicit locks are (1) to prevent expensive handling of
update conflict errors in heavily loaded application
this is the exact reason I try to avoid conflicts. My threads can wait but
they should not raise exceptions.
I always though that it is possible to avoid such
Hello Bruce
Yes, transaction T1 can block a row and transaction T2 will wait. But if
transaction T2 blocks a row then transaction T1 can not wait and dead.
Greetings.
Walter.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:27 AM, brucedickin...@wp.pl [firebird-support]
firebird-support@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Thanks Set,
unfortunately my case is exactly like I've described it above.
I like your idea, thanks for sharing it, will have it at the back of my head as
solution for other problems.
Walter,
I've tested what you've said. But it does not matter which transactions blocks
record first (older or younger). When I do it slowly..it works ok. But if I
start to spam those inserts with many inserts per second then I got deadlock.
Strange, I will test it, too. Maybe I have a misconcept.
Greetings.
Walter.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM, brucedickin...@wp.pl [firebird-support]
firebird-support@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Walter,
I've tested what you've said. But it does not matter which transactions
blocks record
Yes, you are right.
I had a misconcept. Sorry.
Greetings.
Walter.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Walter R. Ojeda Valiente
sistemas2000profesio...@gmail.com wrote:
Strange, I will test it, too. Maybe I have a misconcept.
Greetings.
Walter.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM,
