Assuming if that was possible, but would it be a good idea? I mean if they are nested transactions what would be the point of making them act contradictory to the very idea of transaction? Either they all succeed or they all fail, other wise they are separate transactions.
If the intent is to have the inner transaction to roll back independently from the out one, then would it be more clear to do so without nesting it? For the sake of clarity they should be separated. Regards Arjang On 26 March 2010 17:42, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a stored procedure with nested transactions. > > A rollback transaction occurs in the inner transaction, but I don't want that > to cause the outer > transaction to rollback. > > Is that possible? It seems that the rollback always rolls back both > transactions. > > Regards, > Tony > >
