Re: archiving records

"Daud" <daud11_at_hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 1156821506.859600.301660_at_74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Michel Cadot wrote:
> "Daud" <daud11_at_hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 1156760226.440981.312160_at_i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | >
> | > Yes, *exactly*, 'assume'! *NO* guarantee whatsoever
> | > as
> | > a) you don't lock the table
> | > b) you break up your *logical* transaction into multiple *physical*
> | > transactions
> | > Basic violations against the ACID concept.
> | >
> | > Please do not top post.
> | >
> |
> | What do you mean? I don't understand. Why the table has to be locked?
> | Those rows with colA = 'ABC' will not be updated. No rows with
> | colA='ABC' will be inserted. So, why lock the whole table?
> |
>
> What Sybrand said is unless you are alone on the database
> you cannot guarantee a correct result with your procedure.

Hi Michel,

Thanks for your reply. So, if I am "alone", I will always get a correct result with the procedure above (modified procedure in my second post)? If you read my assumptions, it is like I am "alone" when the procedure is executed.
I understand that there is no ordering/sequence when retrieving rows from a table (unless you use ordery by clause).

Daud

The only way to make sure your assumptions are true is to lock the table. And we are back to Sybrand answer.

Regards
Michel Cadot Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 00:00:58 CDT