joeNOSPAM_at_BEA.com wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 6:07 pm, HansF <Fuzzy.Greybe..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:53:17 +0000, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>>
>>> But that is not standard compliant, is it?
>> When did the truncate command become part of the SQL standard?
>
> The issue at hand is not whether truncate is part of standard
> SQL. The issue is that if a standard SQL client is doing a
> serializable transaction*, and some other client does a truncate
> or anything else, standard or not, should the tx client expect oracle
> to either deliver on the specified isolation level guarantees or notify
> the tx client of a failure? Is it acceptable that Oracle allow a silent
> failure of the tx? As described, if a serializable tx gets different
> results for repeats of the same query, that is already a silent
> failure.
>
> Joe Weinstein at BEA Systems
>
> * (which does include a guarantee of repeatable reads)
I would question the reason for would allowing two different isolation
levels within a single application. What is the business case?
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Wed Oct 18 2006 - 12:07:35 CDT
