At 02:10 PM 6/1/00 -0700, Charlie Caro wrote:

>
>The origins of this behavior relate to the introduction of READ_COMMITTED
>transactions. A QA tester noticed a difference in behavior when she ran a

test

>against a local database and a remote database.
>

Unless

>the architects populi disagree, I would like to rollback the change in a

future

>release to restore the performance.
>

Charlie, if you don't rollback the change, I will huff and puff and
blow your house down.

What did they have in mind? First, inventing a feature that breaks
transaction semantics and then complaining that it breaks transaction
semantics!

I'm curious -- were these the same folks that decided that backwards
compatibility was too hard to test, so screw the installed base?

Jim Starkey