Re: dbms_lock.allocate_unique and autonomous transactions (long)

hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
> More concretely, the whole list structure is being changed,
> and the change should be atomic with regard to other
> operations that may also change the structure. However,
> the short transactions - which dont care about the structure -
> should not block.

So only the transactions modifying the entire list would select for update the list header and therefore be executed serially, the smaller transactions that do not care about the list structure would proceed in the usual way without locking the header first. What is the problem ? Received on Wed Nov 01 2006 - 09:15:12 CST