Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

lock table in exclusive mode

48 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Lehr

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 4:32:45 PM1/24/12
to
hello all

the manual states "This mode denies other processes both read and
write access to the table".
Does it also affect the dynamic allocating of locks?

thanks

Art Kagel

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 4:39:51 PM1/24/12
to Tom Lehr, inform...@iiug.org
I don't understand the question.

Art

Art S. Kagel
Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference.  Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves.



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

Jonathan Leffler

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 10:53:30 PM1/24/12
to Tom Lehr, inform...@iiug.org
[Second send; omitted the list first time.]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 13:32, Tom Lehr <tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
the manual states "[Lock table in exclusive] mode  denies other processes both read and

write access to the table".
Does it also affect the dynamic allocating  of locks?

If the table is locked exclusively, a single lock does for everything, so you will be less likely to need to dynamically allocate more locks.  On the other hand, it reduces concurrency on the table to zero; no-one else can use it while you are using it.

--
Jonathan Leffler <jonathan...@gmail.com>  #include <disclaimer.h>
Guardian of DBD::Informix - v2011.0612 - http://dbi.perl.org
"Blessed are we who can laugh at ourselves, for we shall never cease to be amused."

Tom Lehr

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 4:42:55 PM1/25/12
to
thanks - that is what i was meaning
tom
0 new messages