On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 04:13:01PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> After re-examining the original code, it looks like it was not actually 
> vulnerable to a race condition! (it does the UPDATE, then if not found 
> will do an INSERT, and handle unique violation with a repeat of the same 
> UPDATE - i.e three DML statements, which are enough to handle the race 
> in this case).

What happens if someone deletes the row between the failed insert and
the second update? :)

AFAICT, example 36-1 is the only way to handle this without creating a
race condition.

> However Jim's change handles the race needing only two DML statements in 
> a loop, which seems much more elegant! In addition it provides a nice 
> example of the 'merge' style code shown in e.g 36-1.

What's SOP here... should I ping someone to let them know this patch
should be committed now that those who care are happy with it?
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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

Reply via email to