|
Posted by Robert Klemme on 05/26/07 10:29
On 23.05.2007 12:50, D. wrote:
> I have a question about the "readCommitted" transaction isolation level.
>
> I have a client that is updating a record on a table.
> I suspend the execution after the UPDATE but before the commit statement.
>
> Than another client is trying to read the same record.
>
> As transaction isolation is set to "readCommited" I expected that the second
> client will read the old version of the record (before the update).
> Instead, the second client hangs and wait until the first client do the
> commit.
> I expect this behavior if transaction isolation is set to "serializable"
>
> Is this behavior correct?
Yes. Adding to the other replies: you should not expect SQL Server to
behave similarly to Oracle. Although TX isolation names are identical
there are still different ways to implement them. On Oracle the update
would not block the read but instead the read will see the old version
of the record.
Kind regards
robert
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|