On Mar 04, Ingo Strüwing wrote:
> Sinisa requests to change WL#3561 (transactional LOCK TABLE) so that
> READ/WRITE locks are converted to SHARE/EXCLUSIVE locks for
> transactional tables.
> Rationale: Users won't need to change their applications to profit
> from transactional table locks.
How comes ? "Their applications" use UNLOCK TABLES, their applications
access no tables besides explicitly specified in LOCK TABLES, expect
LOCK TABLES to commit an active transaction, expect them to work in
I don't see how these applications can profit from transactional table
locks. Even if they don't rely on locks working in autocommit mode, even
if they don't rely on LOCK TABLE committing a transaction, and even if
they don't use UNLOCK TABLE - they certainly, positively, absolutely use
*only* tables that were explicitly locked and *never* lock tables
incrementally. Without changing they will never benefit from
transactional locks no matter what you do in the server.