Jochem, Thanks for the reply. Can I assume that if the isolation level is not explicitly stated in the <cftransaction> tag, the isolation level defaults to the default setting of the SQL Server (i.e. CF does not automatically impose a default isolation level)?
Dave Jones NetEffect At 09:49 AM 6/5/03 +0200, you wrote: >Dave Jones wrote: > > > > All of our inserts and updates to this database are wrapped in > > <cftransaction></cftransaction> tags (due to multiple tables > > involved in the transactions). We are not explicitly issuing any > > commits or rollbacks. > > > > My questions are: > > 1) Given our use of <cftransaction>, is it possible that CF is > > leaving transactions uncommited? I thought CF handled all of that > > behind the scenes. > >Unlikely. IIRC, every open transaction requires an open connection to >the database. So for you to have 2000 uncommitted transactions, requires >2000 connections. Not many shared hosts have sufficient licenses to do that. > > > > 2b) And if CF was not committing transactions, wouldn't these > > transactions not appear in the database? Is the fact that all of > > our transactions appear in the 'database' (that virtual > > collection of db, logs and cache) indicate that the transactions > > are in fact getting committed? > >That depends on the isolation level of the transactions. Since MS SQL >Server uses the default level "read committed", so you can indeed only >see changes after a commit (or from inside the transaction that makes >the changes). > >Jochem > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
