Hello, Ann!

"Ann W. Harrison" wrote:

> >- 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.
>
> I guess I don't understand why read-uncommitted would give you any
> information about a locked up record. When you read a committed
> record, you don't know who committed it. Why should uncommitted
> records be different.

Ann, please, don't resist. <g> If there is a feature that can be implemented like piece of cake,
and this feature is a part of competing SQL-servers, this feature
MUST be implemented. Interbase will have extended functionality that can add points
in competition.

I too hate "dirty read" isolation level, but it is standard isolation mode. As you know,
IB now have only one (1) isolation mode that is equal to ANSI - it's READ COMMITTED.
If it can be implemented writing 20-30 lines of code - why not?

--
Dmitry Kuzmenko, Epsylon Technologies.