Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dataioDataio.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!olson From: olson@dataioDataio.UUCP (Darryl Olson) Newsgroups: net.database Subject: Re: IBM DB2 lacks record locking Message-ID: <855@dataioDataio.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 10:26:05 EST Article-I.D.: dataioDa.855 Posted: Wed Nov 6 10:26:05 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 06:45:31 EST References: <2953@sun.uucp> <1621@utah-gr.UUCP> Reply-To: olson@dataio.UUCP (Darryl Olson) Distribution: net Organization: Design Automation Products, Data I/O, Redmond, WA Lines: 11 In article <1621@utah-gr.UUCP> peter@utah-gr.UUCP (Peter S. Ford) writes: >> ... It is not surprising to me that IBM DB2 opted for an implicit >> locking scheme. DB2 supports both an implicit and an explicit locking scheme. The explicit locking capabilities include the SQL statement LOCK TABLE, the isolation level option of the BIND command, and the tablespace "lockable unit" parameter. Darryl Olson uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!olson