PDA

View Full Version : abort_transaction behaviour in 3.2 vs. VDF



Archie Campbell
18-Aug-2005, 09:08 PM
In VDF the next instruction after the ABORT_TRANSACTION command is the
instruction after the next END_TRANSACTION command.
Makes sense. Abort and it skips to the end missing the next stuff.

In 3.2 the next instruction is the one right after the ABORT_TRANSACTION
command.

Is there something that describes how ABORT_TRANSACTION works in 3.2 maybe
explaining the differences.

Thanks

Archie

Archie Campbell
18-Aug-2005, 11:19 PM
I knew it was there somewhere.
I found the White Paper by Ben last updated October 2001.
It explains life with transactions very nicely.
Archie

"Archie Campbell" <archie@accordsystems.com> wrote in message
news:jeBimLGpFHA.788@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> In VDF the next instruction after the ABORT_TRANSACTION command is the
> instruction after the next END_TRANSACTION command.
> Makes sense. Abort and it skips to the end missing the next stuff.
>
> In 3.2 the next instruction is the one right after the ABORT_TRANSACTION
> command.
>
> Is there something that describes how ABORT_TRANSACTION works in 3.2 maybe
> explaining the differences.
>
> Thanks
>
> Archie
>
>

Bob Worsley
19-Aug-2005, 06:34 AM
Let me guess... you found the white paper within 5 minutes of posting the
first message here, right? Always happens to me that way.
Bob

"Archie Campbell" <archie@accordsystems.com> wrote in message
news:UtJ49UHpFHA.1716@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> I knew it was there somewhere.
> I found the White Paper by Ben last updated October 2001.
> It explains life with transactions very nicely.
> Archie
>
> "Archie Campbell" <archie@accordsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:jeBimLGpFHA.788@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> > In VDF the next instruction after the ABORT_TRANSACTION command is the
> > instruction after the next END_TRANSACTION command.
> > Makes sense. Abort and it skips to the end missing the next stuff.
> >
> > In 3.2 the next instruction is the one right after the ABORT_TRANSACTION
> > command.
> >
> > Is there something that describes how ABORT_TRANSACTION works in 3.2
maybe
> > explaining the differences.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Archie
> >
> >
>
>

Archie Campbell
19-Aug-2005, 07:28 PM
Yup.
The act of writing a NG posting often brings clarity to the situation.
A
"Bob Worsley" <rworsley@choosebroadspire.com> wrote in message
news:F1wtrHLpFHA.7068@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> Let me guess... you found the white paper within 5 minutes of posting the
> first message here, right? Always happens to me that way.
> Bob
>
> "Archie Campbell" <archie@accordsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:UtJ49UHpFHA.1716@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> > I knew it was there somewhere.
> > I found the White Paper by Ben last updated October 2001.
> > It explains life with transactions very nicely.
> > Archie
> >
> > "Archie Campbell" <archie@accordsystems.com> wrote in message
> > news:jeBimLGpFHA.788@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> > > In VDF the next instruction after the ABORT_TRANSACTION command is the
> > > instruction after the next END_TRANSACTION command.
> > > Makes sense. Abort and it skips to the end missing the next stuff.
> > >
> > > In 3.2 the next instruction is the one right after the
ABORT_TRANSACTION
> > > command.
> > >
> > > Is there something that describes how ABORT_TRANSACTION works in 3.2
> maybe
> > > explaining the differences.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Archie
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>