See below
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mysql. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:31 PM
Subject: Transaction question - no rollback needed?
> Does it make sense to use a transaction just for the row locking
propert
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 01:26 pm, Randy Johnson wrote:
> I am confused. (innodb table type)
I'm really not so sure about the 'lock in share mode' thing, but to the best
of my knowledge if you do a
SET TRANSACTION_ISOLATION_LEVEL=SERIALIZABLE
and then start a transaction where you read data f
Randy,
Monday, August 19, 2002, 7:29:43 PM, you wrote:
RJ> Thanks for your reply, is it documented somewhere?
That COMMIT and ROLLBACK release locks? Of course, look at:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/InnoDB_transaction_model.html
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.my
Randy,
Tuesday, August 20, 2002, 8:51:36 AM, you wrote:
RJ> Here is an insert from the innodb reference manual
[skip]
RJ> The solution is to perform the SELECT in a locking mode, LOCK IN SHARE MODE.
RJ> SELECT * FROM PARENT WHERE NAME = 'Jones' LOCK IN SHARE MODE;
[skip]
RJ> This means that
Thanks for your reply, is it documented somewhere?
Randy
- Original Message -
From: "Victoria Reznichenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Transaction Question
> Randy,
> Sunday, August 18,
Randy,
Sunday, August 18, 2002, 10:57:54 AM, you wrote:
RJ> I am using innodb tables via mysql max
RJ> if i do a select * for update
RJ> and then do an update statement
RJ> will this unlock the record for another update or will it wait for me to do
RJ> a commit?
It will wait for COMMIT/RO
