Re: Single-statement 'write consistency' on read committed. Oh, really?

Hello,

"APC" <andrew.clarke_at_logicacmg.com> wrote in message news:58428d02.0312050153.56fd671_at_posting.google.com...
> > 1. As I mentioned earlier, why bother with the restart at all since the
READ
> > COMMITTED IL
> > promise would not be broken, restart or no restart. What's the rationale
for
> > the restarts ?
>
>
> Because the alternative is to process rows that no longer meet the
> criteria.

So what ? The READ COMMITTED IL is not violated -- it did not promise repeatable reads. Why bother about this specific anomaly whilst ignoring others, like ignoring new rows satisfying the predicate? They would not be processed either.

> the CBO ought to recognise patterns, and under certain circumstances
> disregard those rules. Well, that sounds like a lot of complicated
> programming to me, a certain amount of overhead and a whole lot of
> grief.
>
> Besides, if Session had set PENDING=NULL then (pending * 0) = 0' would
> not evaluate to TRUE.

Well, in my previous posting I said assuming the column is defined as NOT NULL.
>
> > 3. The behaviour is not described anywhere in Oracle documentation.
> >
>
> You got me there.
>
> Cheers, APC

Brgds. Received on Fri Dec 05 2003 - 05:51:26 CST