Jay Sprenkle wrote: > On 6/7/06, Bill KING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I understand why I'm getting the deadlock now, lazy locking, (it's >> against the logical grain of transaction/locking, but that's a whole >> other argument) . Maybe this should be highlighted with big arrows in >> the information around multi-threading, as starvation/deadlock happens >> and often, especially if you get the scenario: >> >> begin begin >> write (fail because of read lock) write ( busy deadlock) >> commit (fail, busy, read lock). commit (fail, busy, deadlock). > > Why are you putting transactions around single sql statements? > There seems to be no benefit to it. > Because it's not a single statement, it's several levels of tables, and the whole operation needs to be atomic for system consistency. Which is, essentially what transactions are for.
-- Bill King, Software Engineer Trolltech, Brisbane Technology Park 26 Brandl St, Eight Mile Plains, QLD, Australia, 4113 Tel + 61 7 3219 9906 (x137) Fax + 61 7 3219 9938 mobile: 0423 532 733
