> Suppose I have a transaction (T1) which executes a > complicated stored procedure. While T1 is executing, > trasaction #2 (T2) begins to execute. > > T1 take more time to execute that T2 in such a way > that T2 finished earlier than T1. The result is that > t2 returns set of data before it can be modified by > T1. > > Given the above scenario. Is there a way such that > while T2 will only read that value updated by T1 (i.e. > T2 must wait until T1 is finished) ? What locks should > I used since a portion of T1 contains SELECT > statements? Should I used the "SERIALIZABLE > isolation".
What's wrong about this question? I'm interested in an answer, too. Regards, Christoph ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
