Matthew Vanecek said: > You lock a table in order to perform updates on the table, in the > absence of row or page level locks. Standard DBMS practice. Not a > design flaw--it's a feature, to prevent corruption of data. Lock > tables, perform updates, unlock tables. Anyone else will get a > contention error, and either retry their transaction or do other error > handling.
Well in my world locking a table causes grief beyond belief. Page locks are ok, row locks preferred. I think it is a design flaw to lock a table to update a row. Thus I think in general MySQL as a choice is a design flaw, but I wanted to avoid that debate. (See Mr. Browne's email earlier as I share his opinion on MySQL) Please read I never said it was silly to 'lock' records, only silly to 'lock' tables. There is a very significant difference. -Derek _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
