"Anhaus, Thomas" wrote: > > ... > >> Note : The <commit statement> and <rollback statement> are NOT permitted > in > >> a > >> stored procedure.
> ... > IMO every stored procedure therefore should open a subtransaction which is > ended successfully only if no unexpected error occurs. > Otherwise the subtransaction should be rolled back : > > CREATE DBPROC EXAMPLE AS ... > SUBTRANS BEGIN; > ... > IF no_error > THEN > SUBTRANS END > ELSE > SUBTRANS ROLLBACK; I could not agree more, but I must confess I find myself bedazzled :-). For me a subtransaction is a nested transaction, which is a transaction like any other albeit smaller <g>. Yet the (way) above can only make sense if subtransactions are not transactions as such for then there could be no rollback in a stored proc. But then if they are not transactions how, if at all, can they provide for atomicity? Yet if they do that implies that rollback is allowed in a stored proc. Which begs the question that since not all transactions seem to've been created equal, what about atomicity? Are some atoms more, ehm, "atomier" than others? Protons, muons,...? I must be missing something here and though I think I've got an inkling what, namely a semantic interpretation, ... ? I have the feeling someone went overboard in trying to prevent confusement over scope. But that's just me ;). Roelof -- _______________________________________________________________________ eBOA� est. 1982 http://eBOA.com/ tel. +31-58-2123014 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Information_request fax. +31-58-2160293 _______________________________________________ sapdb.general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
