On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > "If two such transactions concurrently try to change the balance of > > account 12345, we clearly want the second transaction to start from the > > updated version of the account's row" > > > > To me, I read this as the first transaction has not yet committed, but the > > second sees its changes ... so if second commitst, and first hasn't yet, > > second commits with seconds changes + firsts changes, but what if first > > aborts? > > There's the rub--it doesn't say the part about "has not yet committed," > although I can see how you could read it that way.
I would say that "two such transactions concurrently" heavily implies such, no? :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
