Re: Reliable and fast money transaction design

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/29/07 09:34, Decibel! wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:37:26AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/29/07 07:27, cluster wrote:
>>> OK, thanks. But what with the second question in which the UPDATE is
>>> based on a SELECT max(...) statement on another table? How can I ensure
>>> that no other process inserts a row between my SELECT max() and UPDATE -
>>> making my SELECT max() invalid?
>>>
>>> A table lock could be an option but I am only interested in blocking for
>>> row insertions for this particular account_id. Insertions for other
>>> account_ids will not make the SELECT max() invalid and should therefore
>>> be allowed.
>> Well, concurrency and transactional consistency *allows* other
>> processes to update the table after you start your transaction. You
>> just won't *see* their updates while you're inside of a transaction.
>
> Just make sure and read up about transaction isolation... in the default
> of READ COMMITTED mode, you can sometimes see changes made by other
> transactions.

Argh!!! The RDBMS that I typically use defaults to SERIALIZABLE.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG1YxuS9HxQb37XmcRAlJOAKCWL+NtM95YC2bMkFjOkD2NfF/xuQCggfKO
QQC/mW+IYtlV6R9rqaSomMs=
=H3+i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----