Re: tracking changes on a table through ODBC application

pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) wrote:
> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in message
> news:<qqCUa.154597$H17.54867_at_sccrnsc02>...
> > Dirty reads are not a feature they are a
> > failing. Oracle itself does do dirty reads; it just does not allow you
> > the user to do them. (eg trying to insert a row with a repeated primary
> > key where the repeat was inserted in an uncommitted transaction that
> > you cannot see. Error will be raised because the primary key
> > violation. Case of Oracle "looking behind the scenes - doing a dirty
> > read".)
>
> Sorry, but do you have any proof for this or can you supply a version
> number/parameters/test case where Oracle behave like this?
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but other guy should be locked
> and get "constrain violated" message AFTER first guy will commit his
> transaction.

Yes, that's what happens--the 2nd guy gets blocked until the 1st guy either commits or rolls back. But still, for that block to occur, Oracle has to be doing a dirty read behind the scenes.

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service              New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB