Galen Boyer wrote:
> 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.
My ISP no longer has your code available. Please send it. Thanks.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 23:44:03 CST
