So, 535 should read again the row, getting now the updated version from 526?

Greetings.

Walter.

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Alan McDonald <alan@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> But 535 will need to re acquire the row before it can update.
>
> Alan
> On 07/01/2013 11:34 AM, "W O" sistemas2000profesional@...> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody
> >
> > - Transaction 510 inserts a new row
> > - Transaction 510 commit
> > - Transaction 526 start
> > - Transaction 526 updates the row inserted by transaction 510
> > - Transaction 535 start
> > - Transaction 535 wants to update the row inserted by transaction 510 but
> > unsuccesfully because transaction 526 has locked it
> > - Transaction 526 commit
> >
> > Can now transaction 535 update the row inserted by transaction 510? In
> this
> > case, updates makes for transaction 526 will be lost, right?
> >
> > Or transaction 535 should first to read the new row commited (the 526)
> > before making the update?
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Walter.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Visit http://www.firebirdsql.org and click the Resources item
> > on the main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !
> >
> > Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]