Subject Re: [ib-support] Deadlock and wait
Author Woody
From: "Marcos Vinicius Dufloth" <dufloth@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:16 PM

> I think this is impossible. B get deadlock just because A locked the
> and B couldn't update it.

So, unless A starts an update and doesn't commit or rollback, B shouldn't
get a deadlock? Then, B should get an update error, correct or no?