In message <[log in to unmask]>, Bruce Toback <[log in to unmask]> writes >Roy Brown writes: > >>In practice, you might see more conditional lock failures, due to longer >>lock periods from the queued unconditionals. But this would only occur >>if you had defects in your locking strategy to begin with. > >Why would queued locks be a sign of a defective locking strategy? > Sloppy writing on my part, alas. I think it's what you said, only you said it better :-) I meant that if you had a locking strategy that didn't recover too well when a conditional lock was refused, you might not notice this under normal circumstances, where locks weren't held for very long. But with unconditional locks queuing up, a record is effectively held locked, with no respite, for as long as it takes for all the requests to be serviced. Like if I want my hair cut, I'll walk past the barber's, and if there's a chair free, I'll go in and have it done. Works fine if everyone does that, and/or the load is not too high. But once people start forming a queue there, and the traffic is such that there is never a free chair when I go by, I will find my hair growing way too long. I will need a new strategy if I am ever to get my locks shorn.... -- Roy Brown Phone : (01684) 291710 Fax : (01684) 291712 Affirm Ltd Email : [log in to unmask] The Great Barn, Mill St 'Have nothing on your systems that you do not TEWKESBURY GL20 5SB (UK) know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.'