Actually - IDS had row and page level locking before it was called IDS. I
remember having problems with this in the late 80s. I can't find my
original Turbo notes but think even Turbo had row and page level locking.
And that was released in 87.

Malcolm (the grey haired one!)

-----Original Message-----
From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org]
On Behalf Of Christine Normile
Sent: 25 September 2006 15:29
To: Sebastian, Norma J.
Cc: scottishpoet; informix-list@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Let me be the first


Bruce -

Was this piece by CRN (http://www.crn.com/sections/software/
software.jhtml?articleId=193004835) supposed to discuss the
optimistic concurrency isolation currently under development? Of
course, that would not explain the reference to DB2 since they do not
support optimistic concurrency.

If so, it might have made some interesting reading. As written, it
is of little value since record-level (or row-level) locking has been
available in IDS for over a decade.

Christine
On Sep 25, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Sebastian, Norma J. wrote:

> Perhaps record locking is a type of application support.... Such as if
> I were to select a "record" of data from 2 different tables....
> Then the record lock is held with same ID on both tables?
>
> Tough to see how record and our long standing row lock are different.
>
> Ideas?
>
> Norma Jean
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org
> [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of scottishpoet
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:29 AM
> To: informix-list@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: Let me be the first
>
>
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>> Mark Townsend said:
>>>
> http://www.crn.com/sections/software/software.jhtml?
> articleId=193004835
>>
>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and
> will
>> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the
> latest
>> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database
>> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers,
>> N.Y."
>>
>> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
>>
>> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database
> user
>> knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me
> out
>> here... the early 90's?
>>
>> I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I
>> do.
> (
>>
>> --
>> Bye now,
>> Obnoxio
>>
>> "... no bill is required as no value was provided."
>> -- Christine Normile
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
>> believed to be clean.
>
> the article does go on to say
>
> "The current IDS Version 10 Release Change 5-IDS uses its own release
> terminology-offers row-level and column-level locking."
>
> which suggests there is a difference between record and row level
> locking
>
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
> ================================================== ==========
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and
> confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
> message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or
> distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
> Tellabs ================================================== ==========
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

_______________________________________________
Informix-list mailing list
Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

> Was this piece by CRN (http://www.crn.com/sections/software/
> software.jhtml?articleId=193004835) supposed to discuss the
> optimistic concurrency isolation currently under development? Of

Fascinating

Mark Townsend said:
>
> Fascinating

Personally, I think it's a very bad idea. Apart from all the effort needed
to maintain MV consistency, I can't wait to find out what the new model
breaks in our existing application world.

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"... no bill is required as no value was provided."
-- Christine Normile

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
believed to be clean.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> Mark Townsend said:
>
>>Fascinating
>
>
> Personally, I think it's a very bad idea. Apart from all the effort needed
> to maintain MV consistency, I can't wait to find out what the new model
> breaks in our existing application world.
>
Nothing unless you set the appropriate ISOLATION level. Only setting the
ISOLATION level changes the behavior. The interesting thing will be to see
how mixed isolation applications interact!

Art S. Kagel