----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baron Schwartz" <baron@stripped>
> Because it can be resolved by rolling back just one of them. Why
> destroy ALL the work people are trying to accomplish, if you could
> just throw away some of it?
What I fail to understand, Baron, is how there can be a deadlock here - both transactions
seem to be hanging on a single-table, single-row update statement. Shouldn't the oldest
transaction already have acquired the lock by the time the youngest came around; and
shouldn't the youngest simply wait until the eldest finished it's update?
Or is this a problem with the consistent view that I'm not seeing?
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel