Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!apple!voder!pyramid!unify!nico From: nico@unify.uucp (Nico Nierenberg) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Asynchronous SQL Message-ID: Date: 19 Mar 90 16:55:14 GMT References: <2438@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <745@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3510@infmx.UUCP> <779@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3585@infmx.UUCP> <4990@rtech.rtech.com> Reply-To: nico@unify.UUCP (Nico Nierenberg) Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA Lines: 24 In article <4990@rtech.rtech.com> jas@llama.rtech.com (Jim Shankland) writes: >In article <3585@infmx.UUCP> perk@infmx.UUCP (Paul Perkovic) writes: >>I might have missed your point, and it may be that no one else >>cares about what's proposed for SQL3, so maybe followups, if >>necessary, should go to email. (In any event, I'll be at ANSI >>meetings for the next few weeks, so I won't be able to respond.) > >Wait! I care. And my initial reaction is, "gag me." I'd rather >see support for multiple sessions from a single client. The client >can then achieve the effect of asynchronous queries by running queries >in separate sessions. > That's ok as long as they can run as the same transaction. Otherwise you could get lock conflicts between your updates and queries. >jas -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicolas Nierenberg "No matter where you go, Unify Corp. there you are." nico@unify