Joel Garry wrote:
> You really think the MSSQL locking and consistency is acceptable for
> nearly all enterprises? Maybe I missed something, but it seems to
> foment lots of strange ideas about those subjects, and I don't mean
> just from the O point of view (in fact I think the "rdb way" is most
> "correct" and O is a bit oddball, but I've become convinced the "O
> way" is generally better for business apps - don't know much about DB2
> besides what I see here).
FWIW, I have never heard of row-versioning (which is what this all
comnes down to semantically) as a requirement from DB2 customers.
Naturally the topic comes up when porting Oracle Apps to DB2 because
Apps must be aware of the semantics and changing the isolation level
means changing apps, means porting gets expensive.
Interestingly Yukon seems to provide Oracle style isolation level.
Whether this feature is being added for migration or to make SQL Server
customer happy I can only guess.
IMHO versioning is as valid as any other locking scheme.
Each having their own ups and downs.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Received on Sat Mar 27 2004 - 10:25:11 CST
