On Sat, 03 Jan 2004, damorgan_at_x.washington.edu wrote:
> Galen Boyer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004, damorgan_at_x.washington.edu wrote:
>>
>>>Galen Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Thanks for ignoring everything else.
>>>
>>>I agreed with you. I thought that was obvious from my
>>>statement "Exactly".
>> Okay. You just said that I wouldn't be able to produce a
>> deadlock using SELECT FOR UPDATE, even with my "contrived"
>> example. You didn't seem to acknowledge that you were wrong.
>>
>
> As I understand it the wait with a SELECT FOR UPDATE is not a
> deadlock but rather an intentional wait. With a slight change
> in syntax ... SKIP ... that doesn't happen.
>
> To my way of thinking this is not a deadlock as it generates no
> error condition.
>
> Did I misunderstand you?
Try it.
--
Galen Boyer
Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 20:36:12 CST
