| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Single trans per connection? |
|---|---|
| Author | Michael Ludwig |
| Post date | 2012-06-08T11:46:37Z |
Kjell Rilbe schrieb am 08.06.2012 um 13:06 (+0200):
[…] most database brands don't support multiple concurrent
transactions on a single connection (InterBase/Firebird is
the only exception I know of).
It'd be nice to have a separate transaction object, and
to be able to start and commit multiple transactions per
connection. But vendors simply don't support it.
Likewise, standard vendor-independent APIs like JDBC and
ODBC make the same assumption, that transaction state is
merely a property of the connection object.
JDBC: Can I share a connection in a multithreading app, and enjoy
nice transactions? - http://stackoverflow.com/a/289057/269126
Michael
> Den 2012-06-08 12:04 skrev Helen Borrie såhär:User Bill Karwin on StackOverflow.com:
> > the .net provider […] the Firebird API.
>
> Well, it actually does seem like concurrent transactions are NOT
> supported, as per version 2.6.5. That's what it actually says in the
> exception I get when calling FbConnection.Begintransaction while my
> first transaction is active.
[…] most database brands don't support multiple concurrent
transactions on a single connection (InterBase/Firebird is
the only exception I know of).
It'd be nice to have a separate transaction object, and
to be able to start and commit multiple transactions per
connection. But vendors simply don't support it.
Likewise, standard vendor-independent APIs like JDBC and
ODBC make the same assumption, that transaction state is
merely a property of the connection object.
JDBC: Can I share a connection in a multithreading app, and enjoy
nice transactions? - http://stackoverflow.com/a/289057/269126
Michael