Re: serializable isolation level behavior question

On Oct 18, 10:07 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> joeNOS..._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

Hi Dan. I didn't notice where anyone was limiting to one application or specifying multiple isolation levels. Let us posit one application that hopes to use Oracle's serializable isolation level, and one rogue/bumbling admin that mistakenly truncates a table. Should Oracle behave as claimed for the application's serializable tx? Joe Received on Wed Oct 18 2006 - 12:39:10 CDT