Hi Tarlika,
it seems that everything in Torque is used by somebody - no chance to clear
up ;-)
Ok, I will not do it.
By the way, why do you need to lock tables ? I thought postgresql is
capable of serializable transactions. In my experience, locking is only
needed if one does not have serializable transactions (or does not want to
use them).
Thomas
T E Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 28.03.2005 12:53:16:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Thomas Fischer wrote:
> > I have noticed that the adapter contains two methods, lockTable() and
> > unlockTable(), which are not used by Torque (anymore ?). The
implementation
> > of these methods is in some cases not existant, in other cases
questionable
> > (e.g. in Oracle, tables are unlocked by a commit, so the unlockTable
does a
> > commit, which is not at all the expected behaviour.)
> >
> > It seems that locking and unlocking a table cannot be made to look the
same
> > over all Dbs. To reflect this, I would like to deprecate these methods
in
> > order to remove them in a future release (Torque 3.3 at the soonest).
Any
> > objections ?
>
> Yes - I am using them. Although: I wish I had a better concept avoiding
> lock table for my particular scenario.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards/Gru�,
>
> Tarlika Elisabeth Schmitz
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
