Re: ** commit or rollback - diff
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:04:47 UT
- Are there any SELECT *** FOR UPDATE ? If so commit/rollback will release it. As someone else pointed out it is safer to proceed with ROLLBACK just in case there are some procedure/packages which do DMLs unknowingly.
- How about SAVEPOINT / ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT? Did you give it a thought?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:31:40 -0800 (PST), "A Joshi" <ajoshi977_at_yahoo.com> said:
If I have not done a dml transaction in a session : no update, delete or insert etc. I have only done select and some of the objects can be over a db link. So I can do a commit or rollback so that no transaction is pending in my session. My question is : is there any difference in such case between the behaviour of commit and rollback. When there is no data as such to commit or rollback. I am thinking it is better to do rollback since it has to do less. Am I wrong. Any observation. Thanks for help. ThanksReceived on Wed Feb 18 2009 - 01:04:47 CST