Thanks for your help, that's going to work great!
sk
On 5/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Scott Klarenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/29/2005 05:39:36
> PM:
>
> > Thanks Shawn, that helps a lot. I like your general idea of handling
> > it at application level. I
Scott Klarenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/29/2005 05:39:36
PM:
> Thanks Shawn, that helps a lot. I like your general idea of handling
> it at application level. I guess my main concern w/ web apps and
> locking the record (even at app level) is orphaned locks, resulting
> from browser cl
I could set the user's session timeout to be the same duration as the
record lock timeout...that way, in any event where the user's lock
would have expired, he would have to log back into the system
anyway...but this may be inconvenient as well, as I know a lot of
user's could be idle for some time
Thanks Shawn, that helps a lot. I like your general idea of handling
it at application level. I guess my main concern w/ web apps and
locking the record (even at app level) is orphaned locks, resulting
from browser closes or other events that don't go through the normal
channels of updating or ca
Scott Klarenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/29/2005 02:28:25
PM:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using MySQL 5.0.3 Beta, and I'm hoping for some general
> tips/experience you guys may have had regarding optomistic vs
> pessimistic locking in a web app (PHP 5.0.3)
>
> I'm more of a windows programmer, and
Hi,
Try to have optimistic locking in the database server (row level locking
a.k.a. innodb storage), et let your transactions managed by the server.
Any line of code like "lock table" will generate a very bad web
application performances.
You can add connection pooling if you want to manage total
