On Wednesday 01 December 2010 14:23, Joost van der Sluis wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:17 +0100, zeljko wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 December 2010 13:48, Joost van der Sluis wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 13:14 +0100, zeljko wrote: > > > > > I think we should not change a thing, until the problem is clear. > > > > > Maybe we can come up with some 'general' transaction-isolation > > > > > levels. The reason they are not implemented in a general way is > > > > > that each DB has it's own locking-style. > > > > > > > > Here is nice explanation of isolation levels, "general" > > > > transaction-isolation levels should be implemented definitelly. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_%28database_systems%29 > > > > > > Well, these are tne ansi/sql transacion isolation levels. do you know a > > > database which actually uses/supports these? (Except from Oracle) > > > > Yes, PostgreSQL supports all of them. > > With the same names? I know from some other db-servers, that they use
Yes. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/transaction-iso.html > different names. Because by default they use some slightly different > isolation levels, but offer the ansi/sql levels as 'compatibility' > option. Sometimes you have to set some flags to get the proper behavior. > (Most DB-vendors find their own isolation-levels better then the > default, 'old', ansi-c ones) Don't know what others do, but we can handle that somehow IMO. zeljko -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus