On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 04:13:01PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> After re-examining the original code, it looks like it was not actually
> vulnerable to a race condition! (it does the UPDATE, then if not found
> will do an INSERT, and handle unique violation with a repeat of the same
> UPDATE - i.e three DML statements, which are enough to handle the race
> in this case).
What happens if someone deletes the row between the failed insert and
the second update? :)
AFAICT, example 36-1 is the only way to handle this without creating a
race condition.
> However Jim's change handles the race needing only two DML statements in
> a loop, which seems much more elegant! In addition it provides a nice
> example of the 'merge' style code shown in e.g 36-1.
What's SOP here... should I ping someone to let them know this patch
should be committed now that those who care are happy with it?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
