Agreed - READ_COMMITTED seems required.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161559#4161559
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161559
___
jboss-user mail
Hi,
in my opinion READ_COMMITTED is the correct level of isolation for optimistic
locking.
Morover in the forst post Tom contradicts himself
anonymous wrote : The required isolation level should be set to REPEATABLE_READ
for hibernate's optimistic locking to work correctly. That isolation lev
I must rewrite my last but one reply. I was trying it ones more how it behaves
and the blocking I was writing about is not truth.
Hello Alex,
anonymous wrote :
| No updates will be ever lost with higher isolation levels. The database
will ensure that no two transactions that update the same
I think that optimistic locking needs READ COMMITTED isolation level of
transactions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Pavel
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159414#4159414
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mo
Hello Alex,
anonymous wrote :
| No updates will be ever lost with higher isolation levels. The database
will ensure that no two transactions that update the same data item can proceed.
|
Yes, I agree. But the db will block the second update until transaction with
first update commits. Ther
I find this statement wildly odd-sounding:
anonymous wrote : In the time gap between Transaction start time and the
UPDATE/DELETE statement there could be commited changes that will be lost (Lost
Updates).
No updates will be ever lost with higher isolation levels. The database will
ensure that n
Sorry Ed, the docs is not surely yours. I have spent more time making the
multithreaded job executor work, still have problems, so I am a little bit
nervous.
Sorry,
Pavel
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4158945#4158945
Reply to the post :
ht
Hello,
I was thinking about REPEATABLE_READ isolation level with optimistic locking
and it seems to me that it can not work. In docs there is written that
anonymous wrote : Non-Repeatable reads are a problem for optimistic locking and
therefore isolation level READ_COMMITTED is not enough caus
>> Can I do something except change of db?
Change from which database?
>From Oracle? Why do you need to?
>From HSQLDB? If you need concurrency, you must move off HSQLDB - JBPM relies
>on the database for synchronization, so that it can be clustered. I'm sure
>some other db's work too - y
>> Is READ_COMMITTED sufficient isolation level for Oracle?
Yes. -Ed Staub
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4158739#4158739
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4158739
_
There is written that Oracle offers the read committed and serializable
isolation levels, as well as a read-only mode that is not part of SQL92. Read
committed is the default.
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/server.101/b10743/consist.htm
Can I do something except change of db?
Hello,
I use Oracle and when I try to set isolation level of data source to
TRANSACTION_REPEATABLE_READ I got exception that READ_COMMITTED and
SERIALIZABLE are the only allowed isolation levels.
When I try to set isolation level of data source to TRANSACTION_SERIALIZABLE it
works, but I recei
12 matches
Mail list logo
