Hi Raul,

Saturday, July 06, 2002, you wrote:

>> But I wonder if it isn't a "bad thing" to build up a "procedure" on
>> ROLLBACKs...

RC> I hope you meant a client procedure not a server one ! A server
RC> procedure can't handle transactions. A server procedure is alwais
RC> runned inside a transaction.

I meant "procedure" in a "workflow" environment! :)
That is: the sequence of operations performed to accomplish a task! :)

>> Maybe, instead of ROLLBACK i could DELETE the row just inserted?

RC> No, there's no problem using rollback.

>> SET TRANSACTION NAME TRANS_1 [...]

RC> /* This will be fine. */
RC> SET TRANSACTION NAME TRANS_1 WAIT;

Yes, the dots mean "some useful options"! :)

>> But, really, I don't like too much to keep a transaction opened for
>> a so long time...

RC> I don't see this as a problem. The server can easily take it !
RC> IB/FB is not a toy and handling transactions is it's one of the
RC> best parts !

Well, if the server keep blocked only clients that would insert the
same rows, there's no problem.
I wonder if the server keep blocked all the clients that want to
perform an INSERT into the same table: this one could be a problem!
Because the server would allow only one client per time to perform a
download and this thing will compromise any kind of parallel download.

Maybe the default transaction option "SNAPSHOT" means that only the
"same rows" are taken under control?

Thank you!

Kind regards,
--
Matteo

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