Isolation levels in Informix vs Oracle ✗ Answered: red (hollow confidence) — Only message present is a follow-up fragment posing an isolation-level question ('am i wrong here?'); no reply is captured, likely a threading break.

Advisory only.

Sorry for not being clear; Here goes: what i ment was for the report: start trx at 13:59 complete at 14:00.00001 get the account info at 14:00.00000 define what one wants in reallity the trx should be part of the results. (it did not got rolled back and it started before the report was started.) if it did roll back you did not want the above transaction!! However it's unkown at the time the report begun. if you keep track of transactions in a trx table and not change the account info (only on specified intervals; some daemon job) and have a table like: create table transactions( whenstarted datetime year to fraction(5), the_account int, from_to_account int, howmuch money(20,3), updated_accinfo boolean, when_updated_accinfo datetime year to fraction, reasontrx char(200).... etc ); you can simply insert two rows in this table to acomplish a transfer from acc1 to acc2 in one transaction and yes to get the info for both accounts at that time will have to wait until the insert has committed so one can get the info out of the account table and process the info for transactions i guess it can be done differently also??!! The transaction table is also for the customers so they can see what happened to their account. If something is wrong one can look which transaction from who etc is responcible. Also you can run the report with commited read and lock mode to wait to get the correct results. -- The demo I do for my classes to demonstrate this issue is as follows: -- Assume two bank accounts and you are transferring money between them. -- At some point in time an update must decrement the balance in one and -- a separate update but increment the balance in the other. In most -- databases you must lock both accounts until both update statements take -- place or risk a combined balance that is inaccurate. In Oracle that -- answer will always be consistent without locking. sorry for my ignorance; i do NOT know Oracle; (typo in my first responce... sorry.) how does the following work then: begin situation $100 for acc1 and acc2 transfer from acc1 $10 to acc2 then simultanious transaction adds $10 to acc1 based on the old value of $100 trx 1 commits making acc1 eq to $90 then trx 2 commits and set's the value to $110. ahum you loose $10 ??!!! am i wrong here or what do i miss?? See you Superboer.