Re: tracking changes on a table through ODBC application

Galen Boyer <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<uvftpylly.fsf_at_standardandpoors.com>...
> On 26 Jul 2003, db_guy_2002_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> We are talking Oracle here. Oracle doesn't have 'dirty reads'
> >> like the Mickeysoft toys do.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Both DB2 and SQL Server support all four *standard* isolation
> > levels. Even open source databases like PostgreSQL are also
> > getting there, so its quite suprising that oracle is lagging
> > behind in not supporting these isolation levels.
>
> They do support dirty reads. You can set that isolation level
> all you want and you will find that you will not be blocked by a
> writer of data, just like other databases.
>

Thats a pretty wierd interpretation of what a "dirty read" is. As per the documentation oracle does not support dirty reads and also does not support two out of four standard levels of isolation.

>
> Now, if _you_, a professional in the database arena, actually
> want to read uncommitted data over committed data, then I
> question your competence,
>
> but Oracle will not allow another
> process to read uncommitted data, period.
>
> Please tell us how, reading uncommitted data from some other
> process is preferable to reading the most recently committed
> data.

Apparently, the excuse for not supporting "dynamic scrollable cursors" (not dynamic sql cursors) is that "dirty reads are never supported." which in itself is quite a stupid excuse since dynamic scrollable cursors are not supported for data that has been committed by other users also. Received on Sun Jul 27 2003 - 03:17:42 CDT