Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1087602573.649098_at_yasure...
>
>>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some people talk about selects as though they were transactions. I
>
> don't.
>
>>>And those people would be wrong, IMO.
>>
>>I agree with one caveat:
>>
>>SELECT ...
>>FROM ...
>>FOR UPDATE;
>>
>>Which is the beginning of a transaction that must end with a commit or
>>rollback.
>
>
> Which is precisely why I included the sentence: "Selects don't (ordinarily)
> take locks in Oracle" in my original reply. The "ordinarily" was
> significant.
>
> You may call it word games, but I wouldn't in any case regard a 'select for
> update' as being the same as a 'select', any more than I would regard an
> insert as being the same as an update. I very carefully said *selects* were
> not transactions.
>
> Regards
> HJR
Not a word game at all. In the Oracle group perfectly appropriate. But
as this was also cross-posted to the DB2 group a bit of explanation is
helpful to those who may not understand the implication.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Sat Jun 19 2004 - 10:01:37 CDT
