>
> I actually think it would be a bad thing for SPs to support such a
> feature. I mean imagine if you thought you could rollback your
> transaction, but one of the SPs you relied on had committed it.

That's you just not undertsnding your database design, it's not a fault of
the database.

>The next query you tried to run would fail because there was no transaction

> to be run. You would also lose your "snapshot" of the database.

SQL Server supports it, and after you do a commit or rollback, it
automatically starts you with a new (implicit) transaction.

So I still don't see a problem with commits in SP.


Thanks
Bupp