----- 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
