On 4 Sep 2003 at 12:17, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> This problem would be easily solved if the current transaction would not
> be automatically rolled back on the failed insert. Given this, it would
> be as easy as trying the insert, and if fails, do the update.
That violates definition of a transaction. You need nested transaction which
aren't there..
You can use a sequence to insert. If next value of sequence is more than value
you have, probably somebody has inserted the value. Then modify it.
Or do a select for update. If it returns the error, there is no record. So
insert, otherwise update.
It might still fail though but chances will be much less.
HTH
Bye
Shridhar
--
Air Force Inertia Axiom: Consistency is always easier to defend than
correctness.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
