On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 01:32:58PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >>Except you can keep trying and trying without the outermost transaction > >>failing. > > > >But that won't provide the necessary next key locking you mentioned in > >your first email, will it? > > No, but since I can loop an infinite number of times until either the > update or insert works, I don't need next key locking.
Oh, I see. Complex stuff ... I wonder how will it work with sequences -- if one insertion fails and we have to try again, there's a chance a sequence could be advanced more than once. Note the article skips the "signal-statement" symbol (is it present in SQL99? What does it do?) I also wonder if there will be a corresponding RULE implementation ... The full DB2 reference is at http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2help/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0010873.htm (signal-statement is something to raise an exception, apparently) (I wonder why they don't use BNF syntax anymore ...) -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Cuando maņana llegue pelearemos segun lo que maņana exija" (Mowgli) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster