(Originally asked Sept 8 on firebird-dev)

Hi,

Currently the java driver maps jdbc tx isolation levels to firebird like
this:

TRANSACTION_SERIALIZABLE <--> isc_tpb_consistency + isc_tpb_wait

TRANSACTION_REPEATABLE_READ <--> isc_tpb_concurrency + isc_tpb_wait

TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED <--> isc_tpb_read_committed +
isc_tpb_rec_version + isc_tpb_wait

TRANSACTION_READ_UNCOMMITTED <--> isc_tpb_read_committed +
isc_tpb_rec_version + isc_tpb_wait


Apparently interclient mapped both TRANSACTION_SERIALIZABLE and
TRANSACTION_REPEATABLE_READ to isc_tpb_concurrency (I'm not sure about the
isc_tpb_wait).

Nickolay Samofatov thinks (see bug [ 575397 ] SERIALIZABLE is not
isc_tpb_consistency) that this is wrong and that our driver should emulate
interclient and map TRANSACTION_SERIALIZABLE and
TRANSACTION_REPEATABLE_READ to isc_tpb_concurrency + isc_tpb_wait.

I think that there is no way to have a completely satisfactory mapping of
the jdbc isolation levels into the firebird isolation levels, since as far
as I can tell the meanings have only some overlap. Therefore I think this
mapping should be based on what is most useful for the most users (which,
of course, I think the current mapping supplies).

I'd like some other opinions about this. I think that
1. isc_tpb_concurrency does have some update anomalies that mean that it
really shouldn't be labelled serializable

2. isc_tpb_consistency is stronger isolation than isc_tpb_concurrency

and

3. it is most useful for users of the driver to have more choices, so
mapping 2 jdbc levels to one firebird level will reduce the usefulness of
the driver. (we already map read uncommitted onto read committed!)

Please comment.

Thanks!
david jencks