Jim Starkey wrote:

> Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>
>> Jim Starkey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The implementation of commit retaining uses related transactions with
>>> record visibility suitably fudged. The mechanism and fudge could
>>> probably be extended to take autonomous sub-transactions visible to the
>>> parent transactions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> For what you want this?
>>
>> FWIW, the more useful thing would be if the autonomous block can see the
>> preceding change from the parent.
>> But this totally breaks the transaction control, as the autonomous block
>> may commit and the parent not. I.e., this is READ UNCOMMITTED.
>>
>>
> It does, indeed. But if the autonomous transaction sees the parent
> transaction and the parent transaction rolls back, the autonomous
> transaction can't commit.

And that breaks completely the concept of autonomous transaction.

> That leaves communication between a parent
> and autonomous transaction is limited to formal parameters and local
> variables.

And external tables.


Adriano