Re: Concurrency in an RDB
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:19:35 GMT
Message-ID: <rSlgh.33065$cz.493887_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Deadlock is caused by disk swapping, you say? You are
> right; I do not see me being able to perceive this any
> time soon.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:19:35 GMT
Message-ID: <rSlgh.33065$cz.493887_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> On Dec 14, 3:22 pm, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have never stated that locks put on objects can not cause deadlocks
>>to happen.
>
> So your position is:
>
> 1) There is NO direct relationship between locks and deadlocks.
> 2) Locks put on objects can cause deadlocks.
>
> Well. The More You Know.
>
>
>
>>A lock is a normal mechanism and is not the real >>cause of the deadlock problem which lies more on the IO/disk swapping >>contention of ressources. A matter of perspective, idiots like >>Marshall will probably not perceive in a lifetime.
>
> Deadlock is caused by disk swapping, you say? You are
> right; I do not see me being able to perceive this any
> time soon.
Not even with the Romper Room magic looking glass! I see Cimode! And Neo! And... Received on Fri Dec 15 2006 - 01:19:35 CET