it seems that everything in Torque is used by somebody - no chance to clear up ;-) Ok, I will not do it.
I'll let you know when I stop using 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).
I believe that "serializable" is the postgresql default but I am not setting it exxplicitly in my Torque.properties file: It's ages ago since I set up the properties file but I remember that a handful of settings caused a warning in Torque and I've never managed to clear this up:
#torque.dsfactory.cashtill.pool.defaultTransactionIsolation=SERIALIZABLE
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]
