Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:05:17 +1200
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:raFci.11281$KM6.3866@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And if another program does this in the order of "file 2 then file 1" -Kinda makes me wonder why anybody would NOT use a relational database for
what happens? (This is historically known as "bad programming" when not
all applications access "critical" records in the same order - but it is
also known to happen)
mission critical master data... :-)
(This thread, to me, is like discussing the relative merits of the Swiss
Army 16 nail horseshoe over the standard 8 nail model or whether size 5 city
nails are better than size 5 regular for horses on gravel roads... if you
never rode a horse in your life...)
Record locking? :-)
It's about as relevant in today's world as goose feather fletching... :-)
Pete.
<snip>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: don_fitzgerald
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- References:
- Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: Roger While
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- From: William M. Klein
- Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- Prev by Date: Re: I need help!!
- Next by Date: Re: I need help!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- Next by thread: Re: Clarification of LOCK clauses in 2002
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|