Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, snpe wrote:

> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:46 pm, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > What if it's a select for update?  IF that failed because of a timout on a
> > lock, shouldn't the transaction fail?  Or a select into?  Either of those
> > should make a transaction fail, and they're just selects.
> Ok.Any lock or update,delete, insert (and all ddl command) start transaction
> (select for update, too), but simple select no.Select don't change data and no
> transaction - this process cannot lost consistency (any command with error
> too).

At least in serializable isolation level you'll probably  get different
results if a transaction commits between those two selects based on
whether a transaction is started or not.  Should two serializable selects
in the same session see the same snapshot when autocommit is off?