Re: serializable isolation level behavior question

DA Morgan wrote:
> Bob Jones wrote:
> > "Martin T." <bilbothebagginsbab5_at_freenet.de> wrote in message
> > news:1161326760.938515.185890_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> DA Morgan wrote:
> >>> joeNOSPAM_at_BEA.com wrote:
> (snipped)
> >
> > For the last time, if you want this to work, either use delete or table
> > lock. Serializable does not affect DDLs.
> >
> > Don't complain to the manufacturer if your SUV cannot run on water.
>
> I have to confess I too am shaking my head in amazement.
>
> Hopefully not betraying my ignorance but my understanding is the same as
> yours. I can't understand why anyone would use DDL and expect it to
> behave transactionally.
> --

As others in this thread have said, and what you and Bob seem to continue to ignore is: The transaction that started as serializable did not issue any DDL. In fact it only issues select statements, it's not even trying to change anything. So:
* Is Oracle giving us a useful answer when we delete: Yes - The serialization works.
* Is Oracle giving us a useful answer when we drop: Yes - we get an error.
* Is using truncate on a table where anyone else works on bad design: Yes!
* Is Oracle giving us a useful answer when we query the truncated table: No, it violates the serialization instead of raising an error.

What's the point of serialization if you can't rely on it to produce a) the right answer or b) an error.

cheers,
Martin Received on Sat Oct 21 2006 - 05:29:06 CDT