A question of Transactions
From: Simon Harvey (sh856531_at_microsofts_free_email_service.com)
Date: 11/18/04
- Next message: Miha Markic [MVP C#]: "Re: concurrencyViolation again..."
- Previous message: Marc Scheuner [MVP ADSI]: "Re: DAAB 3.0"
- Next in thread: Mary Chipman: "Re: A question of Transactions"
- Reply: Mary Chipman: "Re: A question of Transactions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:48:47 -0000
Hi everyone,
Can anyone tell me, if I use and ADO transaction object to execute say 10
stored procedures, and the stored procedures are themselve quite quite long
and multistaged, do I need to use transaction statements inside the
individual procedures to avoid potential concurrency issues, or am I
protected from this by virtue of the ADO transaction object.
The reason I ask is, it could be the case that the ADO.net transaction
simply ensures that the stored procedures operate in an all or nothing
manner. This may mean that within a complicated multi staged stored
procedure information could become corrupted because the relevent multi
staged code *inside* the procedure isn't transacted.
I hope that make sense. My query pertains to SQL Server but I'm guessing the
same would be true of any db that supports transactions and SProcs.
Thanks
Simon
- Next message: Miha Markic [MVP C#]: "Re: concurrencyViolation again..."
- Previous message: Marc Scheuner [MVP ADSI]: "Re: DAAB 3.0"
- Next in thread: Mary Chipman: "Re: A question of Transactions"
- Reply: Mary Chipman: "Re: A question of Transactions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|