Re: Solution for 01555

From: Paul Brewer <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:33:22 -0000
Message-ID: <3e32f694_1@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>

"vlad" <bulk_at_sfatcu.com> wrote in message news:me7Y9.15345$_s4.14132_at_rwcrnsc54...
> > > Now, I understand, that given the time and resource limitations we all
> live
> > > under, Oracle maybe couldn't do all this and still charge a reasonable
> price
> > > for its software. Still, an architecture liable to abstruse errors
like
> > > "delayed block cleanout" simply sounds incomplete to me.
> >
> >

1555 with 'delayed block cleanout' really means: "I'm sorry, so much has changed since you asked, that I'd rather not answer the question than give you a false or misleading answer".

The real issue here, I think, is that Oracle is a *multi user* database.

This means (as Jonathan put more succinctly), that you need to decide on what are your particular definitions of 'now' and 'the truth'. How do you propose reporting on other users' uncommitted transactions? Or those which have been committed since the start of your query?

Regards,
Paul Received on Fri Jan 24 2003 - 14:33:22 CST