On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> > Michael Bayer ha scritto: >> >> >> On Feb 22, 6:04 am, Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Michael Bayer ha scritto: >>> >>>> its what it says...its updating the database and not finding the >>>> rows >>>> it expects, indicating some other concurrent process already >>>> deleted >>>> that row. >>> Is this actually possible, even if each query run in its own >>> transaction? >>> The database is Postgresql 8.1, Debian Etch. >> >> sure...its a deleted row so row locking doesnt even count....both >> transactions can occur totally separate from each other too. >> > > Ok, but then why SQLAlchemy raises an Exception? > because the second transaction tried to do something, like delete a row, and the row wasnt there....some other transaction already got to it. therefore the operation failed. this is just basic "optimistic concurrency checking". --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
