Re: Replaceing records

On 4 Sep 2003 at 12:17, Csaba Nagy wrote:

> This problem would be easily solved if the current transaction would not
> be automatically rolled back on the failed insert. Given this, it would
> be as easy as trying the insert, and if fails, do the update.

That violates definition of a transaction. You need nested transaction which
aren't there..

You can use a sequence to insert. If next value of sequence is more than value
you have, probably somebody has inserted the value. Then modify it.

Or do a select for update. If it returns the error, there is no record. So
insert, otherwise update.

It might still fail though but chances will be much less.

HTH

Bye
 Shridhar

--
Air Force Inertia Axiom:    Consistency is always easier to defend than
correctness.