William Scott Jordan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> That's a very good guess. We are in fact updating this table multiple
> times within the same triggered function, which is being called on an
> INSERT. Essentially, we're using this to keep a running total of the
> number of rows being held in an
On Thursday 16 July 2009 23:20:34 William Scott Jordan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> That's a very good guess. We are in fact updating this table multiple
> times within the same triggered function, which is being called on an
> INSERT. Essentially, we're using this to keep a running total of the
> num
Hi Andrew,
That's a very good guess. We are in fact updating this table multiple
times within the same triggered function, which is being called on an
INSERT. Essentially, we're using this to keep a running total of the
number of rows being held in another table. The function we're using
c
Hi Andrew,
That's a very good guess. We are in fact updating this table multiple
times within the same triggered function, which is being called on an
INSERT. Essentially, we're using this to keep a running total of the
number of rows being held in another table. The function we're using
c
On Thursday 16 July 2009 19:56:47 William Scott Jordan wrote:
> Hey all!
>
> Is there a better way to increase or decrease the value of an integer
> than doing something like:
>
> ---
> UPDATE the_table SET the_int = the_int + 1 WHERE the_id = 123 ;
> ---
>
> We seem to be getting a lot of deadlock
