Re: Savepoints - Was: Isolation levels in Informix vs Oracle
Serge Rielau and Mark Townsend discussed savepoints and Oracle comparisons. Serge said autonomous transactions commit independently of the parent, unlike nested savepoints or nested transactions. Mark conceded he had confused Microsoft-style nested transactions with Oracle autonomous ones. The rest was banter, including a remark from John Carlson. No technical problem to solve.
Auto-generated by Claude from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Mark Townsend wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> A commit completes the transaction and the savepoints evaporate. >> >> >> Thanks, that makes Oracle and DB2 compatible and SQL Server the odd >> one out. >> >> Cheers >> Serge > > > Well .... expect that Oracle has nested (autonomous) transactions as > well. Really, really useful for audit type operations > Ahh, yes.. now THAT is a red herring. Autonomous transactiosn are transactions which are commited independently of the spawning transaction. They tryl are separate entities. That has nothing to do with nested savepoints or nested transactions which are, well.. nested. Living and dying with their parents. Seems to be a vendor independent product manager desease to confuse these. Makes me wonder on which feature-function-comparison table that rumor originated. I do agree that it's useful for audit, but if you keep thinking up new Oracle features to debate, maybe it's time to move. We can use the schema not(!) equal owner thread over at c.d.o.server :-) Cheers Serge
> Autonomous transactiosn are transactions which are commited > independently of the spawning transaction. They tryl are separate > entities. That has nothing to do with nested savepoints or nested > transactions which are, well.. nested. You are correct - I had mistakenly assumed a nested transaction a la Microsoft was the same as an autonomous transaction a al Oracle. A quick review of the doc does indeed show me that they are not. Thanks for pointing this out, albeit with a number of specious implications.
Mark Townsend wrote: > >> Autonomous transactiosn are transactions which are commited >> independently of the spawning transaction. They tryl are separate >> entities. That has nothing to do with nested savepoints or nested >> transactions which are, well.. nested. > > > You are correct - I had mistakenly assumed a nested transaction a la > Microsoft was the same as an autonomous transaction a al Oracle. A quick > review of the doc does indeed show me that they are not. Thanks for > pointing this out, albeit with a number of specious implications. > > Result of search for "specious": specious -- blendend specious -- truegerisch ... if you say so.... look at the bright side you teach the non English speakers fancy words in the process :-) Cheers Serge
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 07:48:10 GMT, Mark Townsend <markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Autonomous transactiosn are transactions which are commited >> independently of the spawning transaction. They tryl are separate >> entities. That has nothing to do with nested savepoints or nested >> transactions which are, well.. nested. > >You are correct - I had mistakenly assumed a nested transaction a la >Microsoft was the same as an autonomous transaction a al Oracle. A quick >review of the doc does indeed show me that they are not. Thanks for >pointing this out, albeit with a number of specious implications. > Pot . . . kettle . . . black . . . 8-) JWC