On 16-9-2012 7:53, Jiri Cincura wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Michael Ludwig <mil...@gmx.de> wrote: >> so why try faking it? > > Because sometimes you're using some tools, designers, wizards. And who > knows why they will ask for ReadUncommitted. And if you can't change > it, you'll be stuck.
What does the specification say (if there is such a thing)? For example the JDBC specification says the following: "It is possible for a given JDBC driver to not support all four transaction isolation levels (not counting TRANSACTION_NONE). If a driver does not support the isolation level specified in an invocation of setTransactionIsolation, it is allowed to substitute a higher, more restrictive transaction isolation level. If a driver is unable to substitute a higher transaction level, it throws an SQLException." In other words: upgrading to a higher isolation level is allowed if you don't support the lower level, downgrading is an error (because users expecting a high level of isolation won't get the guarantees they want, while users expecting a lower level of isolation - usually - don't mind if they get a higher level. So to me treating ReadUncommitted as if it is ReadCommitted would be ok. Mark -- Mark Rotteveel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;258768047;13503038;j? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html _______________________________________________ Firebird-net-provider mailing list Firebird-net-provider@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-net-provider
