Re: Row locking and serializability

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_valinet.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:12:44 -0400
Message-ID: <Yxr83.7714$G01.107914@news3.giganews.com>

I was agreeing with the proposition that Oracle has correctly interpreted the SQL92 definition of serializability, not that Oracle's implementation agrees with what is commonly assumed about serializability.

More imortantly, as Hal Berenson's reply suggests, the SQL92 interpretation
is not a good criterion for an implementation that is free from flaws. I would add, that what is commonly assumed about serializability, at least in my working environment, would form an even worse criterion for assessing serializability.

Regards,

Dave Cressey

Michael Ortega-Binderberger wrote in message ...

>I disagree. The fact that as the original mail suggests, you can
>construct and example where it breaks down, means that Oracles
>serializability is not what is commonly assumed.
Received on Sat Jun 12 1999 - 06:12:44 CDT