Part 1: How to solve the transactional issues of isolation levels

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Part 1: How to solve the transactional issues of isolation levels

  • Good Article where Concurrency problems and Isolations levels are described in simple form.

    Good work 🙂 Thanks!!

  • First of all I introduce myself my name is Javier Prieto (Capilla del Monte, Cordoba - Argentina) and attend a facility with SQLSERVER 2008 R2 STD.

    On this issue I tell ...

    All client pc run Visual Fox Pro9 ADODB Connection and work against the engine.

    To make a reservation, according to the theory, with use the statement


    there should be no way that two pc try to lock a record at the same time, however happens.

    I understand that if the sentence is utilizace from a stored procedure, maybe meet what I should do. But the sentence the way through ADODB and thus does not have the desired effects. In fact I did not find the way it really is serializable.

    What I also came to the concept of having to add that statement is as follows:

    select @Pudo=COUNT(*) from Bloqueos with (UpdLock)

    With "with (UpdLock)" could greatly reduce the number of users, but I could not remove.

    Maybe you know some effective technique that can be used with ADODB.:crying:

  • It would be very helpful if more attention was given to proof reading articles before posting them. This one has numerous grammar and punctuation errors which make it very cumbersome to read.

  • just a note to say that isolation level is set at the connection level and that the default is read committed and that if another isolation level is desired it needs to be set in the connection

  • I'm sorry but my home language is Spanish and I use the Google translator to write the post.

    Maybe then you can tell me a good site to post in Spanish.:-D

  • D'oh! Language barrier. That would explain it then. In that case, if a reviewer is unavailable, then it may be helpful to include a disclaimer in future articles.

  • > or it may show (-20$) (which is quite impossible as of banking constraints)

    Not in the USA... the bank would gladly let the account go negative and charge another $50 fee 🙁

  • Thanks for your note.

    I recommend you to be wait for the second part. I hope the clarification can help.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply