Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: procedure based block locking

Re: procedure based block locking

From: Chris Boyle <cboyle_at_hargray.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:46:28 -0500
Message-ID: <Bqf8c.11253$Ft.1082@lakeread02>


Thanks for the idea, i will try it today "Mark C. Stock" <mcstockX_at_Xenquery .com> wrote in message news:CeidnTN6c5eU7MHdRVn-gw_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Chris Boyle" <cboyle_at_hargray.com> wrote in message
> news:zPZ6c.11763$TV6.2585_at_lakeread02...
> | Good morning,
> |
> |
> |
> | I have a form block that is based on a procedure that passes a table of
> | records in and out. This form is going to be used by multiple user
> looking
> | at the same data so an on-lock procedure has been included as part of
the
> | package. This is working when user B tries to update the same record
that
> | user A is in the process of updating. I can catch the ora 00054
exception
> | and prevent B from doing anything as long as the record is locked. What
I
> | have not figured out is how to force B to re-query the record after A
has
> | updated and committed it. Since the block data is stored in a pl/sql
> table
> | it does not automatically pick up the changes so I can have a phantom
> update
> | occur. Is there a standard way to handle this type of processing that I
> | have not yet found? If so, could you point me in the right direction or
> | provide some ideas on how you handle this?
> |
> |
> |
> | Thanks
> |
> |
>
> the procedure you call in your on-lock should check if the row has been
> changed since the user last retrieved it
>
> forms usually does this by comparing all columns -- a better way would be
to
> have a row version id or a modified_date column that you could compare
with
> the value the user is expecting
>
> ;-{ mcs
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 06:46:28 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US