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
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 re
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.
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.
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:
>
>"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 su
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
