Re: Concurrency in an RDB
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:47:59 GMT
Message-ID: <zMchh.1546$cx4.588_at_trndny09>
"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166174551.814267.265040_at_80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Marshall a écrit :
> 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.
Deadlock such as response time, are purely implementation adn therefore
physical dependent.
Yeah and oh it's Disk/RAM swapping activity not just Disk swapping...
If you try to paraphrase what you don't agree with, at least do it
right. Moron!
If you try to paraphrase yourself, at least do it right. Cimode! Received on Sun Dec 17 2006 - 15:47:59 CET