Re: Record locking...
From: oj (nospam_ojngo_at_home.com)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: Bungle: "Don't Run Script If Database Exists"
- Previous message: Pradeep Kutty: "Re: SELECT TOP"
- In reply to: Lia: "Record locking..."
- Next in thread: Manish Sawjiani: "Re: Record locking..."
- Reply: Manish Sawjiani: "Re: Record locking..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:23:42 -0800
Here's an old archive on this type of issue:
http://tinyurl.com/5qevd
-- -oj "Lia" <Lia@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9A1DD01A-FA17-4785-B6F6-3869907C9DE9@microsoft.com... > Hi Experts, > > Here's the scenario of the case... > > User1 does a retrieve of information, with the intention of updating it > later. At the same time, User2 does a retrieve of information, with the > intention of updating it later. User1 updates some of the row on the web > server, and then calls an update stored procedure.Then user2 updates some > of > the row on the web server, and then calls an update stored procedure. > > Some of user1s updates are lost because user2 had "stale" data. > > So what a lot of applications do is to implement explicit locking, so that > when user1 did the retrieve, he had to say "I want to lock it cuz Im gonna > update it later". The rule is in that case that a locked record cannot > also > be locked by someone else > and update can only be called if the record was locked by that user. > > We can of course add a column to every table that has to support this > "locking", but I was wondering if SQL Serversystems support some kind of > "lock this record please"?
- Next message: Bungle: "Don't Run Script If Database Exists"
- Previous message: Pradeep Kutty: "Re: SELECT TOP"
- In reply to: Lia: "Record locking..."
- Next in thread: Manish Sawjiani: "Re: Record locking..."
- Reply: Manish Sawjiani: "Re: Record locking..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
