Re: How to avoid waiting for locks during delete

"André Hartmann" <andrehartmann_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f3b6022_at_olaf.komtel.net>...
> > Fact. The data MUST change. That is after all WHY the user wants to
> > update/delete it. It MUST be done.
>
> Yes, it must be done. But not parallel to some other operation that wants to
> change the same data. My degree of freedom is TIME here. If I had the chance
> to let Oracle detect the collision, I can suggest to the user to defer the
> concurrent operation wich is acceptable to our customer.

Time is not part of relational theory. That is why you must use some non-relational extensions to the database (or change the design) to solve this problem.

FWIW, and probably adding to the confusion.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/business/news_1b14ousted.html