Re: Serializable transactions get rolled back while there are no othertransactions running?!

"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Apparently, this one will be fixed in Oracle 11
> (yes, really, that wasn't a joke).
>
> Could you clarify what environment or feature
> you are thinking of when you comment on the
> "per-table configured memory " and the need
> to configure more of it.
>
> Regarding:
> > Any data that is read by a serializable tx can be altered and committed
> > by
> another
> > tx before the first one completes, and if the first tx rereads the
> > changed data it will still see the old values, even though the real
> > data has been changed.
>
> I think that's what most people would expect of serializable.

Not I. I would expect one of the two to get a "cannot serialize" error. The isolation level that Oracle calls "serializable" is not truly serializable. I'm not saying that that level isn't useful, nor am I saying that it could be made truly serializable without incurring significant performance penalties. I'm just saying they probably shouldn't have named it "serializable" when it really isn't.

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service                        $9.95/Month 30GB