On Tuesday 10 September 2002 11:50 pm, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, snpe wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:46 pm, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > What if it's a select for update? IF that failed because of a timout
> > > on a lock, shouldn't the transaction fail? Or a select into? Either
> > > of those should make a transaction fail, and they're just selects.
> >
> > Ok.Any lock or update,delete, insert (and all ddl command) start
> > transaction (select for update, too), but simple select no.Select don't
> > change data and no transaction - this process cannot lost consistency
> > (any command with error too).
>
> At least in serializable isolation level you'll probably get different
> results if a transaction commits between those two selects based on
> whether a transaction is started or not. Should two serializable selects
> in the same session see the same snapshot when autocommit is off?
It is session, not transaction.My select don't change data and this is not
transaction.
My abother question, agian : why error (bad typing) start transaction ?
regards
haris peco
