Exactly. On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:32 AM, James Holmes <james.hol...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > However without a serializable transaction (assuming read committed is > therefore the isolation level used), another query could insert a new > row and commit before the commit in this transaction; this would > result in an incorrect ID. > > mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: > http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/ > > > > 2009/10/27 Dave Watts: > > > >> Since serializable is the only isolation level that is meant to > eliminate > >> phantom reads, that means that this approach will probably only work if > you > >> set the isolation level to serializable (and, of course, that your RDBMS > >> supports it). Which includes the performance implications that this > >> isolation level brings. > > > > I don't think there's any danger of phantom reads occurring in this > > case. Phantom reads occur when a single transaction reads the same set > > twice and gets different values each time due to changes between the > > first and second queries. > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_%28database_systems%29#Repeatable_reads_.28phantom_reads.29 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:327763 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
