Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14259

Re: JDBC transaction isolation

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From	Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: JDBC transaction isolation
Date	Fri, 4 May 2012 06:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Lines	21
Message-ID	<13727084.5.1336139937187.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcmf4> (permalink)
References	<jnu4pj$ncr$1@dont-email.me> <4fa2aa0c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <jnujl6$os4$1@dont-email.me> <4fa2d5c7$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <jnv0i7$mta$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4fa31b83$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <bdab6a01-f1c1-4398-8f9f-bb8d9cf21d1f@bh8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4fa3402a$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <755a49a5-0072-4d3b-b310-af8068c28450@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	69.28.149.29
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace	posting.google.com 1336139937 6497 127.0.0.1 (4 May 2012 13:58:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 4 May 2012 13:58:57 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To	<755a49a5-0072-4d3b-b310-af8068c28450@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To	groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info	glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T
User-Agent	G2/1.0
X-Received-Bytes	2157
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:14259

Show key headers only | View raw

Richard Maher wrote:
> It's no use simply hiding the fact that someone else has just
> completely invalidated your SUM() or COUNT() or any other range
> retrievals and validation, updates, and business decisions will now
> based on those stale values!

It's no use trying to make the case that Oracle's DBMS does not support serializable 
isolation when it does, especially with wrong reasoning like that.

> If Oracle chooses to say they already have "Serializable" then how
> 'bout "Really, Really, Bolshie"? (And then maybe a lock promotion on a
> sequential table scan?)

Huh? What? 

Whatever Oracle chooses to say, the fact is that their database supports serializable transaction 
isolation. Your nonsensical babble notwithstanding.

-- 
Lew

Thread

JDBC transaction isolation markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-03 07:30 -0700
  Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-03 11:53 -0400
    Re: JDBC transaction isolation markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-03 11:43 -0700
      Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-03 15:00 -0400
        Re: JDBC transaction isolation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 14:00 -0700
          Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-03 17:13 -0400
        Re: JDBC transaction isolation "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-05-04 06:23 +0800
          Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-03 19:57 -0400
            Re: JDBC transaction isolation Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 19:08 -0700
              Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-03 22:34 -0400
                Re: JDBC transaction isolation Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 20:11 -0700
                Re: JDBC transaction isolation Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 22:33 -0700
                Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-04 08:27 -0400
                Re: JDBC transaction isolation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-04 06:58 -0700
          Re: JDBC transaction isolation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 17:15 -0700
            Re: JDBC transaction isolation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-03 21:22 -0400
              Re: JDBC transaction isolation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 18:32 -0700

csiph-web