In this case you lock rows, but there are not subsequent operation which will use this lock. FOR UPDATE only makes sense as a part of transaction.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > I do not see any use case for this. Why would you want to do this? > > > > Atomic cache supports locking to my knowledge. The use case would be > identical in SQL use case - to lock a row. Why not? >
