hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> DA Morgan a écrit :
>
>> hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> As I get it,
>>> the OP wanted to manually lock in exclusive mode some
>>> configuration (or definition or type) tables, to prevent concurrent
>>> changes by two users - not a completely stupid idea, IMO.
>> Couldn't that be accomplished simply with SELECT FOR UPDATE?
>
> Well, I think that the goal of the OP was to understand what
> was going on, and that goal has been achieved by now, AFAICS.
>
> As for a solution, I dont think that we have enough information
> to suggest one.
>
> This said, I for sure doesnt have a very satisfying way
> to prevent concurrent inserts in the configuration table
> (in the OP situation)
>
> I guess that a dbms_lock enforced by a trigger may
> do the trick, but that hardly qualifies as an elegant solution,
> when there are many tables to lock.
>
> I would be very interested to hear of better ones.
>
> Cheers
>
> --- Raoul
Given what you've indicated, a configuration table, I would argue that
this is something that should be dealt with in application design. In
other words there should be no legitimate business process capable of
driving the problem.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Sun Dec 10 2006 - 13:17:40 CST
