On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> "If two such transactions concurrently try to change the balance of
> account 12345, we clearly want the second transaction to start from the
> updated version of the account's row"
>
> To me, I read this as the first transaction has not yet committed, but the
> second sees its changes ... so if second commitst, and first hasn't yet,
> second commits with seconds changes + firsts changes, but what if first
> aborts?
There's the rub--it doesn't say the part about "has not yet committed,"
although I can see how you could read it that way.
Jeroen