judging by what chain seems to mean with other dbs,

+ chain means immediately start a new transaction
- chain means start autocommit.

I could be wrong here...

I'd also be surprised if sql 2003 has a concept of "retaining"

david jencks

On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 10:06 AM, Lester Caine wrote:

> I think this is an 'architecture' type question :)
>
> I'm plodding through the SQL2003 spec, and have not got very far, still
> on 'A'.
>
> The
> <commit statement> ::= COMMIT [ WORK ] [ AND [ NO ] CHAIN ]
>
> I am assuming is just RETAIN and RELEASE under another name, so that a
> 'chained' transaction is simply a retained one?
>
> Anybody looked at how close we are in Firebird to the SQL2003
> transactions?
>
> Has anybody started checking the SQL2003 compliance list?
>
> --
> Lester Caine
> -----------------------------
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>