Mikey C wrote:
> Maybe I didn't make the question clear. I'm not talking about locking and
> multiple writers. I'm talking about optimistic concurrency control in a
> disconnected environment.
>
> Two processes (say a webserver). One reads some data and presents it to a
> user (open - re
Mikey C uttered:
Hi,
Maybe I didn't make the question clear. I'm not talking about locking and
multiple writers. I'm talking about optimistic concurrency control in a
disconnected environment.
Two processes (say a webserver). One reads some data and presents it to a
user (open - read - clo
Hello
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:24:02 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>Maybe I didn't make the question clear. I'm not talking about locking and
>multiple writers. I'm talking about optimistic concurrency control in a
>disconnected environment.
>
>IF anyone has changed the data since you last read i
Hi,
Maybe I didn't make the question clear. I'm not talking about locking and
multiple writers. I'm talking about optimistic concurrency control in a
disconnected environment.
Two processes (say a webserver). One reads some data and presents it to a
user (open - read - close). The other re
Mikey C uttered:
What are peoples thoughts on implementing optimistic concurrency control in
SQLite?
Not an option. SQLite has a single writer database locking protocol which
can't handle multiple writers, so the issue of concurrency control is
moot.
One way is modify the where clause
What are peoples thoughts on implementing optimistic concurrency control in
SQLite?
One way is modify the where clause to compare every column being updated,
old value to new value. This makes the SQL cumbersome.
Microsoft SQL Server has a column data type named TIMESTAMP/ROWVERSION which
is da
6 matches
Mail list logo
