Thanks Ruslan.
I presumed this to be the case.
I asked a question a while ago about using "persistant" cursors and it
seems the way to do this is to use "no locks".
Does this mean that this way of working is impossible in a multi-user
scenario?
Ian
On 30 May 2004, at 4:22 pm, valentina-request /AT/ lists .DO.T macserve.net wrote:
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 01:07:05 +0300
> From: Ruslan Zasukhin <sunshine@public.kherson.ua>
> Subject: Re: record locks
> To: <valentina /AT/ lists .DO.T macserve.net>
> Message-ID: <BCDD92B9.1C2E7%sunshine@public.kherson.ua>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> On 5/29/04 12:59 AM, "Ian Devaney" <idevaney /AT/ mac .DO.T com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
>> In practical terms, why would I want to lock records with a read lock
>> or a write lock?
>>
>> I've never really "got" it!
>
> This is required if you work in multi-user way.
>
> Otherwise both users can write into the same record.
> Changes of the firs one will be lost.
>
> Please read any SQL DBMS book on this.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ruslan Zasukhin [ I feel the need...the need for speed ]
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> e-mail: ruslan@paradigmasoft.com
> web: http://www.paradigmasoft.com
>
> To subscribe to the Valentina mail list go to:
> http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
> -------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Valentina mailing list
Valentina /AT/ lists .DO.T macserve.net
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
©2004 Ian Devaney |
