LOL. Now, this HAS to be a troll.
TurkBear wrote:
>
> gg.3.ukuechle_at_spamgourmet.com (Uwe Kuechler) wrote:
>
> >Andrew Allen <andrew.allen_at_sppaammkiller.handleman.com> wrote in message news:<3E67A02E.4060205_at_sppaammkiller.handleman.com>...
> >
> >> You DO NOT know what you are talking about.
> >Ouch. Maybe I should quit my job, then.
> >
> >> txn b will NOT wait for txn a to commit or rollback.
> >This is not what I intended to say. I hope you're the only one who
> >misunderstood me this way.
> >What I meant is: The very moment Txn a issues a commit and the data
> >gets written to disk, waits will occur when Txn b accesses this very
> >data.
> >Or did you seriously want to tell me that even after a commit from Txn
> >a, Txn b will not see the updated data?
> >
>
> IF txn b is already connected it will NEVER see Txn a's committed update unless it disconnects and reconnects..
> The data that is returned to any session is as it existed at the time the session was created...
>
> >> 2. Oracle DOES NOT ever block reads.
> >'nuff said on this one in this thread, no further comment.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Uwe
Received on Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:21:05 CST
