Re: serializable isolation level behavior question

On Oct 18, 10:39 am, "joeNOS..._at_BEA.com" <joe.weinst..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 10:07 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>
>
> > joeNOS..._at_BEA.com wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 6:07 pm, HansF <Fuzzy.Greybe..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:53:17 +0000, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> > >>> But that is not standard compliant, is it?
> > >> When did the truncate command become part of the SQL standard?
>
> > > The issue at hand is not whether truncate is part of standard
> > > SQL. The issue is that if a standard SQL client is doing a
> > > serializable transaction*, and some other client does a truncate
> > > or anything else, standard or not, should the tx client expect oracle
> > > to either deliver on the specified isolation level guarantees or notify
> > > the tx client of a failure? Is it acceptable that Oracle allow a silent
> > > failure of the tx? As described, if a serializable tx gets different
> > > results for repeats of the same query, that is already a silent
> > > failure.
>
> > > Joe Weinstein at BEA Systems
>
> > > * (which does include a guarantee of repeatable reads)
> > I would question the reason for would allowing two different isolation
> > levels within a single application. What is the business case?
> > --
> > Daniel A. MorganHi Dan. I didn't notice where anyone was limiting to one application
> or specifying multiple isolation levels. Let us posit one application
> that hopes to use Oracle's serializable isolation level, and one
> rogue/bumbling admin that mistakenly truncates a table. Should
> Oracle behave as claimed for the application's serializable tx?
> Joe-

Ie: tx starts, reads table, admin truncates table, tx rereads table... Received on Wed Oct 18 2006 - 12:45:46 CDT