https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18855
Michael Hafen <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Signoff |In Discussion --- Comment #14 from Michael Hafen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Andreas Jonsson from comment #13) > Using a table lock seems like a crude solution. > > Why not use a transaction? I agree that the table lock is pretty ugly. Honestly, I haven't tested that it solves the problem either. Think of it, it probably creates a problem where the accountlines table is locked during circulation. (I just found out that foreign key tables also get locked, which compounds this problem.) But a transaction would not prevent multiple threads from changing the same row, which is what I was trying to catch there. I'd be fine with going back to Martin's patches. (But a test would still have to be written. ;) ) Besides, I'm not even using the table locking patch in production here. I've moved on from this, so I'll have to dig in a bit to remember what all is going on, to figure out how much of a problem the 'renewed is still overdue so new fine' case is. This keys on the issue_id, but maybe that can be changed to key on the accountlines_id instead; that would be a better solution to this problem I think. I'll dig in a bit and see if I can get this to key on the accountlines_id instead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
