On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 01:32:58PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Except you can keep trying and trying without the outermost transaction
> >>failing.
> >
> >But that won't provide the necessary next key locking you mentioned in
> >your first email, will it?
>
> No, but since I can loop an infinite number of times until either the
> update or insert works, I don't need next key locking.
Oh, I see. Complex stuff ... I wonder how will it work with sequences
-- if one insertion fails and we have to try again, there's a chance a
sequence could be advanced more than once. Note the article skips the
"signal-statement" symbol (is it present in SQL99? What does it do?)
I also wonder if there will be a corresponding RULE implementation ...
The full DB2 reference is at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2help/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0010873.htm
(signal-statement is something to raise an exception, apparently)
(I wonder why they don't use BNF syntax anymore ...)
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Cuando mañana llegue pelearemos segun lo que mañana exija" (Mowgli)
