Merlin Moncure wrote:
> select user_write_lock(oid) from my_table where value = x;
> returns 1 on success, 0 on failure.
>
> just be careful...
> select user_write_lock(oid) from my_table where value = x order by y
> limit 1;
> can acquire more locks than you might think since the table has to be
> materialized to do the order.
>
> better to write:
>
> select user_write_lock(oid) from
> (
> select oid, * from my_table where value = x order by y limit 1;
> )
>
> also, don't use oid :). In my applications, I make a domain type called
> 'cuid' which pulls nextval() from a public sequence. Put that into your
> tables and lock on it. Just watch for dump/restore.
>
> Merlin
>
>
>
ok i understand, thanks. that work's.
but i'm a little bit confused. this problem is, from my point of view, a
highly frequently appearing problem.
on all places where it can be that two users edit the same record, the
"lost update" problem or the "waiting" problem ;-) can be appeared.
and this is not rare i think.
your solution is good and works surely
<http://dict.leo.org/se?lp=ende&p=lURE.&search=surely> fine( i will test
it ), but it is also unhandy.
my opinion is that this problem should be solved by the database and not
by the user, so i think it is a good point for a wish list ;-).
