Re: Thoughts on implicit/auto COMMITs

From: Justin Mungal <>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:29:59 -0500
Message-ID: <>

I could understand that advice, in SQL Server. Oracle uses a different locking model than SQL Server though. Read up on optimistic vs. pessimistic locking for more info.


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rich J <> wrote:

> 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:
> 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

Received on Wed Mar 14 2018 - 19:29:59 CET

Original text of this message