3 ms·
> Both transactions will run, but as soon as either touches a row the other has already modified […] The whole point of this scenario is that this never happen
by plorkyeran 2y ago
> Both transactions will run, but as soon as either touches a row the other has already modified […]
The whole point of this scenario is that this never happens. The two writes touch unrelated sets of rows. There’s no point where they both try to modify the same row and a conflict is observed.
- magicalhippo 2y agoAh, implied assumptions strike again. I was thinking so DB that when I read "remove", I assumed that. Of course you're right, if you're not actually removing B and C, there's no conflict. If you actually remove B and C in the transaction, ie "deallocating" them either by deleting rows or updating prev/next/data to null, you'll get the conflict I mentioned.