I'm writing a utility to correct some data that involves 3 tables in 2 separate DBCs. I want to wrap the whole thing in a transaction and only commit my changes if the update succeeds in all 3 tables. My first thought was to nest the tableupdates and commit or rollback after each tableupdate. Something like this:
...(pseudo-code) BEGIN TRANS IF TABLEUPDATE(table1) IF TABLEUPDATE(table2) IF TABLEUPDATE(table3) END TRANS ELSE ROLLBACK ENDIF ELSE ROLLBACK ENDIF ELSE ROLLBACK ENDIF ... But then I thought why not put all 3 tableupdates in an IF statement like this: ...(pseudo-code) BEGIN TRANS IF TABLEUPDATE(table1) AND TABLEUPDATE(table2) AND TABLEUPDATE(table3) END TRANS ELSE ROLLBACK ENDIF ... In particular, I'm wondering how transactions work when multiple DBCs are involved. Any opinions/caveats on the pros & cons of each of these approaches? I'm most concerned with data integrity as opposed to performance as this will (hopefully) be a one-time fix. TIA -- Richard Kaye Vice President Artfact/RFC Systems Voice: 617.219.1038 Fax: 617.219.1001 For the fastest response time, please send your support queries to: Technical Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australian Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] All Other Requests - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- This message has been checked for viruses before sending. --------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
