Revision as of 15:33, 4 October 2014 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,564,739 edits m Signing comment by 75.73.1.89 - "→Drizzle is on the list?: " ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:05, 10 April 2015 edit undo \chAlx (talk \| contribs) 10 edits →Proper fine grained locking Next edit →
Line 271: Would someone help me filling what databases have proper fine grained locking? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.127.207.152\|193.127.207.152]] ([[User talk:193.127.207.152\|talk]]) 10:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> : A lot of databases are not ''locking'' but ''versioning''. They has no 'fine-grained' locking because their only locks are (rarely) used for concurrent updates of one row by two+ transactions. These are Interbase-family (Informix, Firebird, Yaffi), PostgreSQL etc. Even MsSQL has an option for snapshots. So this 'fine' locking is not a self-sufficient feature but an option for locking databases only. [[User:\chAlx\|\chAlx]] ([[User talk:\chAlx\|talk]]) 11:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) == Forks ==

Talk:Comparison of relational database management systems: Difference between revisions