Re: Avoiding any locks in SQL Servers - read and understand....its magic.

From: Volker Hetzer <volker.hetzer_at_ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:58:56 +0200
Message-ID: <bhtaf1$aq0$1@news.fujitsu-siemens.com>

"Tom Ivar Helbekkmo" <tih+nr_at_eunetnorge.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:86u18d528l.fsf_at_athene.i.eunet.no...
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer_at_ieee.org> writes:
>
> > But shouldn't the one that *started* first win?
>
> Nope. The one that commits first must win, otherwise it will be
> forced to wait until all other transactions, started after it, that
> can possibly be suspected of conflicting with it at some point, have
> completed.

Ok, maybe that's in the standard and I don't argue what *is*. But wouldn't a "first commit wins" policy mean that short transactions can starve out longer running ones by forcing repeated rollbacks and retries?

Do I see a reason for locks here?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker Received on Tue Aug 19 2003 - 08:58:56 CDT