Re: ** commit or rollback - diff

From: GovindanK <>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:04:47 UT
Message-Id: <>

  1. 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.
  2. How about SAVEPOINT / ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT? Did you give it a thought?

HTH GovindanK

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:31:40 -0800 (PST), "A Joshi" <>  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. Thanks

Received on Wed Feb 18 2009 - 01:04:47 CST

Original text of this message