Dave,
I can't explain what is happening here. I think the best next step is
to turn on query logging on the server and look at the actual SQL
statements being executed. It really looks like some extra commits or
rollbacks are occuring that is causing the locks to be released.
thanks,
--Barr
Dave,
I don't know why you are seeing these problems with the lock table. But
the select for update should work for you. (In my product I have done
exactly the same thing you are trying to do using select for update with
success).
I would add one minor comment on your description of the beh
Dave Harkness wrote:
>
> At 01:45 PM 10/2/2001, Barry Lind wrote:
> >Dave,
> >
> >Secondly, you don't need a table lock, you just need to lock the row
> >between the select and the update. You should use 'select for update' to
> >do this. That way when you issue the select to get the current val
Dave Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Running in serializable mode, I'm getting a Postgres exception:
> ERROR: Can't serialize access due to concurrent update
Well, in that case my theory about it all being one transaction is
wrong; you couldn't get that error without a cross-transact
Barry, Tom, et al,
Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.
Okay, I changed the PLpgSQL function to use select for update rather than
locking the table explicitly. Now I'm getting different errors. Running in
auto-commit and read-committed modes, I am seeing the same error as before:
thr
Dave Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem I'm seeing is that two database transactions,
> initiated via JDBC, are able to obtain simultaneous exclusive table locks
> on the same table.
Sounds to me like JDBC is feeding all your commands through a single
database connection, which
At 01:45 PM 10/2/2001, Barry Lind wrote:
>Dave,
>
>First off, are you running with autocommit turned off in JDBC? By default
>autocommit is on, and thus your lock is removed as soon as it is aquired.
I've tried it with auto-commit ON and OFF. With it off, I've tried it with
READ_COMMITTED and
Dave,
First off, are you running with autocommit turned off in JDBC? By
default autocommit is on, and thus your lock is removed as soon as it is
aquired.
Secondly, you don't need a table lock, you just need to lock the row
between the select and the update. You should use 'select for update
