Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #28010, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 3, 2017, 4:27:33 AM (8 years ago)
Author:
Ran Benita

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #28010, comment 2

    v1 v2  
    11Thanks Simon. I will try to implement approach 1. I will start with just supporting `self` (not implicit), and see if I can get it to work; that would already be useful.
    22
    3 Also, I need to correct my comment on Oracle a bit: while Oracle requires to specify a column, it does not "lock a column", it locks the entire row of the table containing the column. So it's equivalent to Postgres, only we should write `SELECT ... FOR UPDATE OF "orders_order.id"` in Oracle instead of `SELECT ... FOR UPDATE "orders_order"` in Postgres. Here's the doc: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e41084/statements_10002.htm#SQLRF55372
     3Also, I need to correct my comment on Oracle a bit: while Oracle requires to specify a column, it does not "lock a column", it locks the entire row of the table containing the column. So it's equivalent to Postgres, only we should write `SELECT ... FOR UPDATE OF "orders_order.id"` in Oracle instead of `SELECT ... FOR UPDATE OF "orders_order"` in Postgres. Here's the doc: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e41084/statements_10002.htm#SQLRF55372
Back to Top