Re: Solution for 01555

"Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote:
> "vlad" <bulk_at_sfatcu.com> wrote in message
> news:me7Y9.15345$_s4.14132_at_rwcrnsc54...
> > > > Now, I understand, that given the time and resource limitations we
> > > > all
> > live
> > > > under, Oracle maybe couldn't do all this and still charge a
> > > > reasonable
> > price
> > > > for its software. Still, an architecture liable to abstruse errors
> like
> > > > "delayed block cleanout" simply sounds incomplete to me.
> > >
> > >
>
> 1555 with 'delayed block cleanout' really means:
> "I'm sorry, so much has changed since you asked, that I'd rather not
> answer the question than give you a false or misleading answer".

Or, 1555 (with or without delayed block cleanout) really means: "I'm sorry, I've failed to maintain sufficient information to give you an accurate answer to your question."

> This means (as Jonathan put more succinctly), that you need to decide on
> what are your particular definitions of 'now' and 'the truth'.

The particular definitions that Oracle uses for when it doesn't respond with 1555 would suffice, I think.

> How do you
> propose reporting on other users' uncommitted transactions? Or those
> which have been committed since the start of your query?

I don't think Vlad is asking Oracle to return inconsistent data in lieu of 1555s, but rather asking it to realize what's going on and take appropriate actions to prevent the need for 1555s in the first place.

I don't know whether he thinks this can be done without a major performance impact, or if he has such a puritanical view that he doesn't care about the impact.

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service              New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB