At 11:01 AM 3/17/03 -0500, Leyne, Sean (Ext. 225) wrote:

>Roman,
>
> > Right now implementation is not optimal, because it will use too many
> > database connections. The only missing part from the server side for
> > us seems to be decoupling transactions and connections. David Jencks
> > was asking this long time ago.
>
>I am not aware of any database server which does not relate
>transaction(s) to a specific database connection -- how else could you
>track/determine 'dead' transaction/connections?

There are a lot of negatives in that sentence, but I think the answer is
"Interbase/Firebird".

The server does, in fact, provide the ability to reconnect to a transation
in limbo or receive an appropriate error if the transaction has been
completed or is still connected. There is obvious bookkeeping
required to associate the XA idea of the transaction with the server
info, but that isn't a big deal.