Re: Record Lock under Commitment Control -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Record Lock under Commitment Control
From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 13:22:14 -0500
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:57 PM Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Interesting.
It might be interpreted as I could do a
Chain
Update
Update
The first update may release the lock but it would still keep the pointer so the next update would also work. As long as the second update is within the same commitment definition.

No, UPDATE cannot proceed without acquiring a lock. This is explicitly
stated in the RPG manual:

<blockquote>
Consecutive UPDATE operations to the same file or record are not
valid. Intervening successful read
operations must be issued to position to and lock the record to be updated.
</blockquote>

John Y.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.