unordained wrote:

> Rather than try to identify a 'part' of a statement to run in a
> separate transaction context (of sorts), would it be possible
> to always restrict a single statement to seeing the result
> of all statements before it, but not be able to see its own?

The mechanism really isn't there. A transaction can see its own results
because they carry it's transaction number. There's a transaction
number on each record, but no statement number. Adding a statement
number to records is possible, I guess, but I'm not at all sure that its
easier or better than checking for the existence of a record on a
statement undo list.


Regards,


Ann