> Lets take a server side HTML scripting language like ColdFusion or ASP.
> All you CAN do is execute a query. One at a time, no less. SURE, I COULD
> have two queries, one with my "Select that Inserts", then one that just
> says "Commit", but I honestly can not tell you if they would even be in
> the same transaction.

yes you can - and they ARE in the same transaction if they are on the same
page.

>
> You understand what I mean about dangling inserts. In the context of web
> users, I would have to wait for the inserts to be swept until other
> users could use them.
>

not so

> You are telling me that I have to/should use transactions the way that
> YOU see fit. My first and foremost priority is to get the data written
> to the table. If I find I dont want it there, I will delete it. It isn't
> the wrong thing to do in my case. Microsoft was pusing the same crap
> down our throat when they insistantly enabled smartdrv whenever it could
> back in the old days of DOS/Win16. But the fact of the matter is,
> buffered writes werent ALWAYS the best solution.
>
> Jason
>
> > This option in the driver is not doing anything you could
> > not have done explicitly yourself. The commit is still
> > occuring outside the stored procedure, transaction control
> > still rests with the client.
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean about the "inserts just dangle",
> > it seems likely that you are referring to the fact that the
> > client representation of the transaction is not aware that
> > your select statement is making changes to the database (it
> > is assuming that a select is non-modifying). This is quite
> > different to the problem of commits in SPs - indeed the fact
> > that you think commits in SPs could solve this particular
> > problem shows just how dangerous it could be.
> >

there were numerous hardware/chip architectural reasons for using smartdrv.
We always want more than the hardware can give us.
Alan