> Ok so I'm biased to how MySQL does it (it's simple and has a good chance of
> working well). Yes it shifts a lot to the application. But if people have
> to do things like do their multiple select for updates in the right order
> (to prevent deadlocks), they might as well start using something like this
> instead (or fix their architecture if possible ;) ).
>
> And it's likely to be faster! Anyone else here like this arbitrary lock
> thingy?
>
> I'm very interested to know of other ways to achieve good serialisation,
> especially database centric methods.
>
> Cheerio,
>
> Link.
>
> p.s. Would anyone actually need timeouts of a day (86400) or greater?
Are you asking for sub-second timeout values? If so, we could add that.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026