Re: Changing isolation level?

From: mcstock <_at_>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <OYydnYF8d4uguVCiRVn-sA@comcast.com>

"Hemant Shah" <shah_at_typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message news:bqj76t$f47$1_at_flood.xnet.com...
| While stranded on information super highway mcstock wrote:
| :)refer to the SET TRANSACTION statement in the SQL Reference manual
| :)
| :)relevant options are: ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE and ISOLATION LEVEL
READ
| :)COMMITTED (default)
| :)
| :)doesn't look like ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE does what you want
| :)
| :)
| :)you'll also want to carefully review the sections on Data Concurrency
and
| :)Consistency in the Concepts manual
| :)
|
|
| As others have mentioned, none of the isolation level will block readers.
| I will have to find some other way.
|

why do you need to block readers?
what is the business benefit?
is it just to make oracle look like DB2?

if you can describe a business benefit and the required behavior from a application functionality standpoint, i'm sure a number of folks can come up with suggested approaches.

Received on Tue Dec 02 2003 - 17:45:29 CST