Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alex Adriaanse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thanks for the input everyone. I think Harald's approach will work
well...
I'm not so sure anymore :-(
Consider something like that:
UPDATE tbl SET col1 = 1 WHERE col2 = 1;
UPDATE tbl SET col1 = 2 WHERE col2 = 1;
with not much time inbetween. By using NULL temporarily, you destroy
the ordering. The client won't miss an UPDATE, but it might execute
the second one before the first. Neither my nor your idea appear to
take care of that.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really see the problem. If
that second statement is executed before the transaction containing the
first statement is committed, wouldn't the second statement block until
the first statement is committed? If the first one is committed before
the second statement is executed, then I don't see how the client will
see the updates out-of-order.
Alex
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
