On 23 Jun 2003 at 8:55, Tim Ledgerwood wrote:

>Yeah, what you describe is the kind of situation I meant. I have set
>all transaction states to concurrency, and have run some tests - seems
>to be working well. Putting it out to test this afternoon, and will
>see what happens.

You shouldn't set ALL transactions' isolation level to concurrency.
Only report transactions that need serializable read. Update/insert
transactions may be (and should be) "read commited".

SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.