Re: Control for "Isolation level" at SELECT statement level

Yong Huang wrote:

> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3F466FEF.449612C6_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> > >
> > > If you need to notify another session what your current session has
> > > done but your current session has not committed, consider DBMS_PIPE.
> > > That's about the only way you can achieve "dirty read", but not in the
> > > sense of a simple SELECT statement. Of course, a more awkward way is
> > > to use UTL_FILE to write something to an external file and let the
> > > other session read it.
> > >
> > > Yong Huang
> >
> > I have no need. I was trying to figure out how anyone could implement a dirty-read in one session without
> > simultaneously having it in all.
> >
> > But I think inter-session notification is better done with DBMS_ALERT than DBMS_PIPE.
>
> If you commit and notify another session, then DBMS_ALERT is good. But
> if you notify without a commit, DBMS_PIPE is needed.
>
> Yong Huang

Not if done with PRAGMA AUTONOMOUS_TRANSACTION. Then you can commit in the messaging proc without committing other transactions that may still be in flux.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)