On 19/06/07, Svein Erling Tysvær
<svein.erling.tysvaer@...> wrote:

> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Upson" wrote:
> > > Nick Upson wrote:

> >
> > so I can't let A wait until B commits and then A will proceed?
> >
> > There isn't actually a conflict as they are updating different
> > fields in a single-row table
>
> If you want to allow these fields to update independantly of each
> other and still not allow simultaneous transactions to update the same
> field concurrently, I would consider storing them in separate records
> or even separate tables.
>
> Set

I was now thinking along those lines as well. Originally there was
only 1 process updating this table, then there was a new feature
added, don't you love em