Re: Anyway to get a .NET ExecuteNonQuery to ignore locked records?

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Alan Campin <alan0307d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

By ignore, do you mean have the OS update the record even if it is locked? I
would say that would be a big no.

No I wouldn't expect the OS to update the locked record,

Seems to me you would not want it to continue on it's merry way. An error
must be reported back to the .Net application to report the problem.

Actually, yes I would like it to continue on it's merry way. The
locked records would be missed, but they would be picked up the next
time around, which works fine for our purposes.

Apparently I'm not the only one to ask for this feature, IBM added it
to DB2 i at 6.1 and DB2 LUW at v9. MS SQL Server and Oracle both seem
to have a similar feature.

Charles