Rails - Oct 2012 - Database integrity and multiple users?

Does RAILS ensure that multiple users of a RAILS application won''t
create a
corrupt database 
if each user is creating database entries with foreign keys linking 
multiple tables together?

Do you have to use explicit table locking ?

Thanks,

P.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/ycUeZ3lz49gJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

On Oct 15, 10:44 am, "xscr...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org"
<xscr...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Does RAILS ensure that multiple users of a RAILS application won''t
create a
> corrupt database
> if each user is creating database entries with foreign keys linking
> multiple tables together?
>
> Do you have to use explicit table locking ?
>
Rails doesn''t do anything by default. You can use optimistic or
pessimistic locking of rows if you need to guard against concurrent
modifications to a single row. I''ve never needed table level locking
(which is an obvious scalability bottleneck)
I personally always use foreign key constraints to enforce integrity
of those references

Fred
> Thanks,
>
> P.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.