I dunno - pessimistic locking and DB2 doesn't sound like that common a mixture to me. But annoying if you need it, I agreee!
You could always revert to a SQL query.
Joined: Jun 28, 2008
pessimistic locking and DB2 doesn't sound like that common a mixture to me
I only want to lock records for update, so that other processes are not able do an update while I am working with that records.
I am working with that records and after the work is done, I will update it (and then it will be unlocked) - is that not common?
It is in my experience. 14 years a developer writing a whole range of applications in a wide range of technologies (all database backed) and I've only once had to use pessimistic locking. And as for DB2 - outside its mainframe market (which is a whole different beast) - its market share is pretty small I understand.
The reason people tend not to use pessimistic locking is because it introduces a bottleneck into their application and it usually takes a really compelling reason to introduce a bottleneck.