They have the isolation level of the clients transaction level. And, it's
success is still based on the client committing. If the stored procedure is
successful yet the client rolls back the transaction, the work that the
store procedure accomplished, will be rolled back also.

Best regards,
Fred Wilson
SE, Bell & Howell
fred.wilson@...





-----Original Message-----
From: Matteo Giacomazzi [mailto:matteo.giacomazzi@...]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 1:40 PM
To: Jason Wharton
Subject: Re: [ib-support] Transactions in stored procedures


Hi Jason,

Friday, July 05, 2002, you wrote:

JW> Let me put it another way, executing a stored procedure is like
JW> having it run in its own nested transaction. Either it succeeds
JW> and all the work it performed is now a part of the clients
JW> transaction or it fails (at any point) and all the work it
JW> performed is cancelled and not a part of the client transaction.

JW> So, the moral to the story is, whatever you need nested
JW> transactions for just put all the work in a single stored proc and
JW> you have your nested transaction.

Okay, but what kind of isolation do I get in that way?
I mean, may I trust on the fact that they are atomic?
That is: if two different processes execute the same stored procedure
are they "serialized" or not? Or they may "overlap" in some way?
This is the real thing I'm interested in!

Thank you!

Kind regards,
--
Matteo

mailto:matteo.giacomazzi@...
ICQ# 24075529



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/