Re: ** commit or rollback - diff

1. Are there any SELECT  ***  FOR UPDATE ? If so commit/rollback
will release it. As someone else pointed out it is safer to
proceed with ROLLBACK just in case there are some
procedure/packages which do DMLs unknowingly.

2. How about SAVEPOINT / ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT? Did you give it a
thought?

HTH

GovindanK


On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:31:40 -0800 (PST), "A Joshi" <ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx>
 said:

  Hi,
      If I have not done a dml transaction in a session : no
  update, delete or insert etc. I have only done select and some of
  the objects can be over a db link. So I can do a commit or
  rollback so that no transaction is pending in my session. My
  question is : is there any difference in such case between the
  behaviour of commit and rollback. When there is no data as such
  to commit or rollback.  I am thinking it is better to do rollback
  since it has to do less. Am I wrong. Any observation. Thanks for
  help. Thanks

Other related posts: