Subject Re: [IB-Architect] Re: [IB-Priorities] Isolation level implemetation
Author Ivan Prenosil
I personally do not _need_ READ UNCOMMITTED isloation level, but
- I noticed it is described in the document "InterBase DSQL Syntax"
- IB will accept such command (but does not behave accordingly)
- so I presume it was planned to implement it (and I would like to know reasons for it)

Although _approximately_ 99.999999999999999999999999999999 % of users
do not need it, _if_ it was implemented, I would not object against it,
- because implemetation of such "feature" would be nearly free
(no significant work/footprint; if you do not like it,
just do not use it)
- because I can imagine _useful_ using of such "feature"
i.e. finding out who has updated and not committed specific record,
which is operation that requires by its nature looking at uncommitted
data or some internal structures.
Of course some special function to retrieve such kind of info
would be better (or at least would not irritate some people ... :-).


I fear that although I explained that I do not need (want?)
Read Uncommitted transactions, I look like heretic anyway
because I admitted that some of my transactions are longer
than few seconds :-( (why would I need to know who is updating
the record ?).