Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

Anthony Mandic wrote: [Snip] > Here is the crux of your problem. "We need to lock". > Its this mindset that doesn't allow you to see a better > solution, so you let your DB server do it for you. > > > SELECT * FROM master WHERE id = ? FOR UPDATE;> > > > -- No need to lock the detail recs 'cause the master rec is locked. > > Yes, no need to lock. Its how you lock master thats the > problem. I'll explain below. And: > You can use a non-server generated lock instead. Then it > just becomes a matter of updating the master table. The > action of this update is also the action of releasing the > lock. No other process is locked out of reading the record > but others can't update or delete while that record is marked > as being in use (provided that they observe the rules). I have never heard before of "non-server generated locks". Could you explain to me what they are and how they work? -Snorri -- Snorri Bergmann | Mail: snorri@strengur.is Strengur Consulting Engineers | WWW: http://www.strengur.is/ Armuli 7 | Phone: +354 550 9000 (9007 direct) 108 Reykjavik Iceland | Telefax: +354 550 9010