On Wednesday 18 July 2007 14:29, "Roderick A. Anderson" <raanders(at)acm(dot)org>
wrote:
> In the mean time if the script gets triggered again and the first
> instance isn't finished the second needs to not be able to select those
> records already being handled.
select for update won't do that. It will sit waiting for locks on the same
rows the first process is handling.
--
"Remember when computers were frustrating because they did exactly what
you told them to? That actually seems sort of quaint now." --J.D. Baldwin