N
Nara Bala
I was trying to update a record from a transaction and simultaneously
trying to read the record. Both the transactions were set to the
default ReadComitted Isolation level. Now I found that the Read
blocked, even after the other transaction had finished its update
operation(of course, not committed).
I was expecting the Read to return the old committed data. But,
instead it blocked. I found that in SQL Server the write operation
makes the row lock level to UPDATE LOCK(and then after UPDATE TO
EXCLUSIVE MODE) and in this mode even a read access blocks.
So, if that is the case, the ReadCommitted Isolation level never
works?
Pls. help. Because, I thought the basic working of a ReadCommitted is
that it reads a older committed value, even if there has been some
later uncommitted changes. What am I missing?
Also is there a way in C#/.NET by which i can control these locks??
thanks,
Nara
trying to read the record. Both the transactions were set to the
default ReadComitted Isolation level. Now I found that the Read
blocked, even after the other transaction had finished its update
operation(of course, not committed).
I was expecting the Read to return the old committed data. But,
instead it blocked. I found that in SQL Server the write operation
makes the row lock level to UPDATE LOCK(and then after UPDATE TO
EXCLUSIVE MODE) and in this mode even a read access blocks.
So, if that is the case, the ReadCommitted Isolation level never
works?
Pls. help. Because, I thought the basic working of a ReadCommitted is
that it reads a older committed value, even if there has been some
later uncommitted changes. What am I missing?
Also is there a way in C#/.NET by which i can control these locks??
thanks,
Nara