> Suppose I have a transaction (T1) which executes a
> complicated stored procedure. While T1 is executing,
> trasaction #2 (T2) begins to execute.
>
> T1 take more time to execute that T2 in such a way
> that T2 finished earlier than T1. The result is that
> t2 returns set of data before it can be modified by
> T1.
>
> Given the above scenario. Is there a way such that
> while T2 will only read that value updated by T1 (i.e.
> T2 must wait until T1 is finished) ? What locks should
> I used since a portion of T1 contains SELECT
> statements? Should I used the "SERIALIZABLE
> isolation".
What's wrong about this question?
I'm interested in an answer, too.
Regards, Christoph
