Talk:Lock (database)

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Software.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

I believe this article may be redundant and unnecessary. It offers no information above that which is present in Lock (computer science), and the information in the latter article is better formatted and more complete besides. I won't nominate this article for deletion just yet, someone may want to improve it, but I think it may well be mergeable. Flewellyn (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this and related articles closely I have come to the same conclusion. There seems to me to be nothing here which adds to the other articles which it references, other than the issue concerning Microsoft SQL Server version 6.5 which could perhaps be merged into the comprehensive Microsoft SQL Server article. I support the idea of nominating for deletion and where necessary removal of the backward links from those other articles. Inspeximus (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very similar to Lock (computer science)#Database locks, it has also been noted that it contains useful information about MS SQL Server, therefore I have suggested merging into those two articles. --217.42.26.227 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locking is an issue independent of the Microsoft SQL Server — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.21.82 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all other issues with the article, the terminology the author uses is a mess, and is used in a very unclean way. There is no such thing as "optimistic locking", since this type of concurrency control does not use locks. On the other hand, not all pessimistic locks are exclusive locks, as the article suggests. Furthermore, the "pessimistic vs. optimistic" issue is only loosely related to the isolation levels defined by the SQL standard. Isolation levels are a set of (theoretical) requirements to the transactional behavior of a database, whereas pessimistic locks and optimistic concurrency control are a means of implementing there requirements. All this is being thrown together in this article and a novice user does not get a clean impression of which one is the cause and which is the effect. 194.156.44.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]