itly, where postgres
> > store this locking information.
> > Is both
> > stmt.execute ("commit");
> > con.commit();
> > are both same. should i have to call
> con.commit() method after
> > stmt.execute("commit")
> >
>INSERT INTO rcp_patient_visit_monitor (
>entry_no, patient_id, visit_date,
> is_newpatient,
> visit_type, is_medical,
>is_review, is_labtest, is_scan,
> is_scopy, is_xray,
> weight, height)
>VALUES ((SELECT
> coalesce(max(entry_no)+1, 1
You need to manage the transaction: begin a
transaction, execute your first insert, retrieve the
ID with curr_val(), execute the sencond insert and
commit the transaction.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have two tables like these:
>
> TABLE_1: people registry
> fields: ID_T1, SURN
Hi,
Does beginning a transaction put locks on the tables
queried within the transaction?
In the example below, is #2 necessary? My thought was
that I would need to use an explicit lock to make sure
that the sequence value I'm selecting in #4 is the
same one that is generated from #3. I'm worried
