Fernando Nunes wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>> Fernando Nunes wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone confirm the following statement is true?
>>
>> "Reads don't block writes and writes don't block reads and only
>> committed rows are visible."
>>
>
> Not absolutely sure, if the reader is in REPEATABLE READ/SERIALIZABLE...
> I will have to test it...
> But in the new isolation level writers won't block readers...
> The fact that Informix have been used in so many situations without this,
> would contradict the importance that you (and me) give to this
> feature...

And the fact that both SQL Server and Informix have quickly moved to add
this capability in the last 18 months would indicate otherwise.

IBM and Microsoft don't spend money implemented what doesn't matter.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote:
> IBM and Microsoft don't spend money implemented what doesn't matter.
OK now that one is worth framing for me.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

DA Morgan wrote:

> And the fact that both SQL Server and Informix have quickly moved to add
> this capability in the last 18 months would indicate otherwise.
>
> IBM and Microsoft don't spend money implemented what doesn't matter.

Hopefully not... But we all have favorite features and our disagreements with
the choices they make...
I like this one very much, but I would gladly change some of the new features
by others...

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

From the keyboard of DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org>:

> And yes SQL Server finally got a measure of this with 2005
> whereas Oracle has had it for decades.

And ORA-1555 as an extra bonus ;-)

Christian
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
/* The opinions stated above are my own and not
necessarily those of my employer. */

Christian Knappke wrote:
> From the keyboard of DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org>:
>
>> And yes SQL Server finally got a measure of this with 2005
>> whereas Oracle has had it for decades.
>
> And ORA-1555 as an extra bonus ;-)
>
> Christian

An essentially obsolete error message for the past6 years. Anyone that
gets it isn't paying attention.

The fact that it has been obsolete for 6 years, and yet someone here
points to it, is another confirmation that many are not paying
attention to the many significant changes to the product.

I expect some see the same the thing with legacy Informix developers
and DBAs too.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)