Re: Is Oracle deliberately difficult?

You are trying to challenge One of the important features of RDBMS, If you cannot accept be prepared to see unbalanced accounts (balance sheet), Your company will fire you for producing such a report.

Jay M. Scheiner <jxs_at_wolpoff_nospam_law.com> wrote in message news:39b51634.845917868_at_news.erols.com...
> I'm not talking about reading the record while it is being changed.
> I'm talking about
> 1) you start processing 10 million records, looking for X to be true.
> 2) someone else changes record # 9 million, from X is true to X is
> false. They commit the transaction. The record is updated, done, not
> in a state of change, etc.
> 3) Your process finally gets to record # 9 million. What should you
> see? The obsolete, incorrect X is true, or the new, correct, X is
> false?
>
> Just becuase X USED TO BE false doesn't mean that your program handles
> it that way, just because or when you started. When it looks at the
> record, it should see the CORRECT, CURRENT value. If anyone can
> convince me that this is logically wrong, then I will be happy to
> admit I am wrong, just like...
>
> the block size thing.
>
>
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 02:39:22 +1100, "Howard J. Rogers"
> <howardjr_at_iprimus.com> wrote:
> >Hang on. The fact is someone is doing something to a record. The
 question
> >is: do you not want to see that record at all whilst it is under update,
 do
> >you want to see its prior value, do you want to see its current value, or
 do
> >you want to see something that says 'something dodgy is going on with
 that
> >record right now so I don't know what to show you'.
> >
> >I'm happy with any of those responses, but I wish you people would tell
 me
> >what the *right* response is. Personally, and thinking as abstractly as
 I
> >can, it seems reasonable to me to show me the value that we all had
 agreed
> >earlier to be the correct one. The fact that it is currently undergoing
> >change -well, you could be doing anything, and I wouldn't want my reports
 to
> >pick up on experimentation you're about to roll back.
> >
>
>
> _______________
> Jay M. Scheiner
> Programmer/Analyst
> Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP
> remove _nospm_ from email address
> Opinions are my own only!
Received on Wed Sep 06 2000 - 08:06:53 CDT