Hi.
I have a few questions regarding the transaction levels in mysql 5.0.20
using InnoDB tables.
we are trying to populate two tables in the two following ways, we thought
that they would be equivalent, apparently they are not.
have a look at the following (questions last).
FIRST METHOD:
=
bruce wrote:
hi..
i'm trying to understand if there's a difference/better reason for doing
transactions using either of the following psuedo approaches...
approach 1 does the commit inside the eval block, whereas approach 2 has the
commit outside the eval block... i've seen sample code with transac
hi..
i'm trying to understand if there's a difference/better reason for doing
transactions using either of the following psuedo approaches...
approach 1 does the commit inside the eval block, whereas approach 2 has the
commit outside the eval block... i've seen sample code with transactions
handl
See below
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mysql. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:31 PM
Subject: Transaction question - no rollback needed?
> Does it make sense to use a t
Does it make sense to use a transaction just for the row locking properties,
and then not needing to error check?
I have a situation where I have seperate files that are being run very often
in realtime by many different users. One is calling a list of 12 football
players. The other is updating
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 01:26 pm, Randy Johnson wrote:
> I am confused. (innodb table type)
I'm really not so sure about the 'lock in share mode' thing, but to the best
of my knowledge if you do a
SET TRANSACTION_ISOLATION_LEVEL=SERIALIZABLE
and then start a transaction where you read data f
I am confused. (innodb table type)
Client 1.
starts transaction
selects balance from table where id=1 for update
update table set balance=100
#At this point from what i have read the balance could be selected by anther
user.
committ
I have read that a select balance from table where id=1 lock
Randy,
Monday, August 19, 2002, 7:29:43 PM, you wrote:
RJ> Thanks for your reply, is it documented somewhere?
That COMMIT and ROLLBACK release locks? Of course, look at:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/InnoDB_transaction_model.html
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.my
Randy,
Tuesday, August 20, 2002, 8:51:36 AM, you wrote:
RJ> Here is an insert from the innodb reference manual
[skip]
RJ> The solution is to perform the SELECT in a locking mode, LOCK IN SHARE MODE.
RJ> SELECT * FROM PARENT WHERE NAME = 'Jones' LOCK IN SHARE MODE;
[skip]
RJ> This means that
Here is an insert from the innodb reference manual
Suppose you use a consistent read to read the table PARENT and indeed see
the parent of the child in the table. Can you now safely add the child row
to table CHILD? No, because it may happen that meanwhile some other user has
deleted the parent r
Thanks for your reply, is it documented somewhere?
Randy
- Original Message -
From: "Victoria Reznichenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Transaction Question
> Randy,
> Sunday, August 18,
Randy,
Sunday, August 18, 2002, 10:57:54 AM, you wrote:
RJ> I am using innodb tables via mysql max
RJ> if i do a select * for update
RJ> and then do an update statement
RJ> will this unlock the record for another update or will it wait for me to do
RJ> a commit?
It will wait for COMMIT/RO
Hello,
I am using innodb tables via mysql max
if i do a select * for update
and then do an update statement
will this unlock the record for another update or will it wait for me to do
a commit?
thanks,
Randy
query,sql
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
