<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I remember in my brief stint as an OpenROAD programmer (OR 3.0, win32s on Windows 3.1, a good day was only two reboots!) being told that even though the new system we were writing would run on OI
1.2 which had outer joins, I should write it as if it were going to run on 6.4 which didn’t – because it was a new feature and therefore probably buggy. ISTR writing a very long snarky comment in the code about it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> info-ingres-bounces@lists.planetingres.org <info-ingres-bounces@lists.planetingres.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roy Hann<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 July 2019 10:28<br>
<b>To:</b> info-ingres@lists.planetingres.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Info-ingres] Was row-level locking ever an "extra cost" option?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chris Clark wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 10:04:04 AM UTC-7, Karl and Betty Schendel wrote:<br>
>> > On Jul 5, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Roy Hann <<a href="mailto:specially@processed.almost.meat">specially@processed.almost.meat</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > <br>
>> > My memory fades. Was row-level locking ever an "extra cost" option?<br>
>> > <br>
>> > I don't think it was but funny things happened in the past, like<br>
>> > creating tables (briefly) being an extra cost option...!<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> I'm not 100% certain, but I don't believe it was ever license-controlled.<br>
><br>
> I can confirm Marty is correct, it was added as a new feature to the base <br>
> product. You did need to use larger (than 2Kb) page sizes to make use <br>
> of it so some minor DBA work was needed if upgrading. <br>
<br>
Thank you Chris, Karl, Marty.<br>
<br>
Row-level locking was released in (I think) Ingres II 2.0, circa <br>
circa 1997, which was also the release that supported so-called large<br>
pages.<br>
<br>
The reason I was asking about this was curiosity about why the system I<br>
am looking at just now has loads of homebrewed optimistic locking code.<br>
<br>
Your combined answers make me wonder if they were just unwilling to<br>
pioneer the use of two new features (in 1997). Code-your-own<br>
optimistic locking may have seemed like a safer idea at the time. (I am<br>
not sure they were right then, and I am certain it's a problem now.)<br>
<br>
I think they could have done other things to avoid the contention they<br>
were expecting (if not experiencing), but here we are.<br>
<br>
Roy<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Info-ingres mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Info-ingres@lists.planetingres.org">Info-ingres@lists.planetingres.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.planetingres.org/mailman/listinfo/info-ingres">https://lists.planetingres.org/mailman/listinfo/info-ingres</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>