Thoughts on implicit/auto COMMITs
From: Rich J <rjoralist3_at_society.servebeer.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:57:22 -0500
Message-ID: <d364d7c69436529cb3820dd0f3052a1e_at_society.servebeer.com>
Hey all,
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:57:22 -0500
Message-ID: <d364d7c69436529cb3820dd0f3052a1e_at_society.servebeer.com>
Hey all,
As a solo DBA responsible for a number of SQL Servers in addition to Oracle, I try to read up on both. One of the (more respected) SQL Server team blogs had this entry:
https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2018/02/set-implicit_transactions-one-hell-bad-idea/
..where they advocate the default auto-commit because otherwise the row (or page, or table) is locked should someone forget to COMMIT.
This seems like an extraordinarily bad idea for anything but ad-hoc or one-off DML (without getting into a sidebar on that particular practice), whether Oracle or SQL Server or whatever.
Or is it just me and some old-fashioned narrow RDBMS thinking?
Rich
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Mar 14 2018 - 16:57:22 CET