Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe the locks get released when the backend process terminates.
> Depending on how the client dies, there may be a significant delay before
> the backend process terminates.
I'd expect a client-application crash to be reported to the backend
prom
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 07:02:51AM -0800, Mark wrote:
> In general I need to lock whole table so only one session can
> perform update. I'm looking for solution that will work in both C++
> and Java.
As I asked in my previous message, what problem are you trying to
solve? What's the rationale b
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 07:02:51 -0800,
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general I need to lock whole table so only one session can
> perform update. I'm looking for solution that will work in both C++
> and Java.
You probably want to use LOCK. You can read the documention for that command
In general I need to lock whole table so only one session can
perform update. I'm looking for solution that will work in both C++
and Java.
Will 'SELECT FOR UPDATE' lock whole table?
As per 'LOCK' will lock released if connection get closed abnormally?
( example: hard crash on the client side, n
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 11:56:26AM -0800, Mark wrote:
> Is it possible to lock row(s) when updating a table, so another call
> for update( from different session) will be rejected and to be on
> hold until lock get released ?
The UPDATE statement automatically acquires locks, but if you need
more
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 13:56, Mark wrote:
> Hi,
> Is it possible to lock row(s) when updating a table, so another call
> for update( from different session) will be rejected and to be on
> hold until lock get released ?
Generally the update itself will lock the table from other updates until
your t
Hi,
Is it possible to lock row(s) when updating a table, so another call
for update( from different session) will be rejected and to be on
hold until lock get released ?
Thanks,
Mark.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
