The docs on concurrency control & deadlocks (User's Guide, 9.3.3, CVS
docs) state the following:
Use of explicit locking can cause deadlocks, wherein two (or more)
transactions each hold locks that the other wants.
This isn't completely true, as deadlocks can occur in applications
that don't use explicit 'LOCK' statements.
Can someone suggest a better way to phrase the intent of that
statement?
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC