Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: serializable isolation level behavior question
"Martin T." <bilbothebagginsbab5_at_freenet.de> wrote in message
news:1161426546.350950.93250_at_m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> 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. >> -- >
Yes, it was the other party issued a DDL. That's why the serializable does not work because, I repeat, DDLs do not write to rollback.
> * 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.
>
Isolation levels are not one-sided affairs, and only apply when all parties are transactional. "Serializable" does not mean no one else can do anything to the table during your transaction, it just decides what your transaction reads in the next operation. Received on Sat Oct 21 2006 - 12:36:28 CDT