Re: Record locking...

From: Manish Sawjiani (ManishSawjiani_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:01:05 -0800

Hi Experts,

What is usually the system? Is it the person who updates gets the priority
or the person who retrieves (for update) gets a priority.

I have been debating on this for some time and after reading a few books i
got the impression that LOCKING records was the practice in the olden days
and in the current situation ( adLockOptimistic ) the person who clicks
update first get a priority and the other person gets an ERROR! Which can be
trapped using ON Error GOTO statement

Please clarify and help me resolve this issue.
Thanks
Manish

"oj" wrote:

> 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"?
>
>
>