> If he is using MS SQL server wouldn't with(tablock holdlock) > also need to be used on the delete AS WELL as a transaction > to actually prevent another process from inserting into the > table until the transaction was complete.
Not if you specify a sufficiently restrictive isolation level. > Furthermore wouldn't the DB attempt to only acquire an > exclusive lock on the rows being modified? Again, this depends on the isolation level, among other things. > A named cflock would help but ONLY if CF code on ONE server > was the only thing accessing that table in the database. > Code from another machine, or a SQL Agent job would not care > about a named cflock. Exactly! This is why databases provide concurrency control. This is why we rely on that concurrency control instead of writing our own. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion is delivering applications solutions at at top companies around the world in government. Find out how and where now http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=finder&productID=1522&loc=en_us Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:288242 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
