Re: Thoughts on implicit/auto COMMITs

I could understand that advice, in SQL Server. Oracle uses a different locking model than SQL Server though. Read up on optimistic vs. pessimistic locking for more info.

-Justin

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rich J <rjoralist3_at_society.servebeer.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> As a solo DBA responsible for a number of SQL Servers in addition to
> Oracle, I try to read up on both. One of the (more respected) SQL Server
> team blogs had this entry:
>
> https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2018/02/set-implicit_
> transactions-one-hell-bad-idea/
>
> ..where they advocate the default auto-commit because otherwise the row
> (or page, or table) is locked should someone forget to COMMIT.
>
> This seems like an extraordinarily bad idea for anything but ad-hoc or
> one-off DML (without getting into a sidebar on that particular practice),
> whether Oracle or SQL Server or whatever.
>
> Or is it just me and some old-fashioned narrow RDBMS thinking?
>
> Rich
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l