> > > > Wouldn't it be better to join a new attachment to an existing > > distributed transaction? > > No. Attachment *itself* can't participate in distributed transaction. At > least > not directly. Transaction of this attachment - can. Just understand: > attachment > *is not a* transaction. > > When i tell "attachment participate in distributed transaction" i mean > "some > transaction of given attachment is a part (or sub-transaction) of given > distributed > transaction".
Certainly, we can make API look like we _do_ join a new attachment to an existing distributed transaction. To do so we just start new transaction in API call internally (need to know TPB...) and join it with existing distributed transaction. But I see no '+' in this approach compared with joining 2 transactions into new distributed transaction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
