[html5] r1059 - /

[whatwg at whatwg.org]

Author: ianh
Date: 2007-10-15 20:40:11 -0700 (Mon, 15 Oct 2007)
New Revision: 1059

Modified:
   index
   source
Log:
[] (0) SQL: New error code for failure to obtain a write lock.

Modified: index
===================================================================
--- index	2007-10-15 21:04:47 UTC (rev 1058)
+++ index	2007-10-16 03:40:11 UTC (rev 1059)
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
 
    <h1 id=html-5>HTML 5</h1>
 
-   <h2 class="no-num no-toc" id=working>Working Draft — 15 October 2007</h2>
+   <h2 class="no-num no-toc" id=working>Working Draft — 16 October 2007</h2>
 
    <p>You can take part in this work. <a
     href="http://www.whatwg.org/mailing-list">Join the working group's
@@ -30495,7 +30495,17 @@
 
      <td>The statement failed because the data returned from the database was
       too large. The SQL "LIMIT" modifier might be useful to reduce the size
-      of the result set. <!-- other errors that we might want to define:
+      of the result set.
+
+    <tr>
+     <td>4
+
+     <td>The statement failed because the transaction's first statement was a
+      read-only statement, and a subsequent statement in the same transaction
+      tried to modify the database, but the transaction failed to obtain a
+      write lock before another transaction obtained a write lock and changed
+      a part of the database that the former transaction was dependending
+      upon. <!-- other errors that we might want to define:
           * database has hit the user quota and the user hasn't
             increased the available space
       -->

Modified: source
===================================================================
--- source	2007-10-15 21:04:47 UTC (rev 1058)
+++ source	2007-10-16 03:40:11 UTC (rev 1059)
@@ -28094,6 +28094,15 @@
      database was too large. The SQL "LIMIT" modifier might be useful
      to reduce the size of the result set.
 
+    <tr>
+     <td>4
+     <td>The statement failed because the transaction's first
+     statement was a read-only statement, and a subsequent statement
+     in the same transaction tried to modify the database, but the
+     transaction failed to obtain a write lock before another
+     transaction obtained a write lock and changed a part of the
+     database that the former transaction was dependending upon.
+
     <!-- other errors that we might want to define:
           * database has hit the user quota and the user hasn't
             increased the available space