BEGIN TRANSACTION / COMMIT "extends" this locking functionality to the work done by multiple statements, but it adds nothing to single statements. However, the database transaction log is always written to when a database is modified (insert, update, delete). This is not an option, a fact that tends to irritate people.
Exec USPStoredProcName I get the following error: Transaction count after EXECUTE indicates a mismatching number of BEGIN and COMMIT statements. Previous count = 1, current count = 0. I have read the answers in other such questions and am unable to find where exactly the commit count is getting messed up.
I am trying to use transaction blocks on a SQL-Console with an Oracle DB. I'm used to use transaxction blocks in PostgreSQL like BEGIN; <simple sql statement> END; but in oracle it seems tha...
Do u think there is a better way to write a transaction in t-sql? Is there a better approach that improves maintainability and performance of the application that uses this transaction? -- Descri...
Participating transaction failed - marking existing transaction as rollback-only So I just stepped through my code to see where this line is generated and found that there is a catch block which did not throw anything.
The good news is a transaction in SQL Server can span multiple batches (each exec is treated as a separate batch.) You can wrap your EXEC statements in a BEGIN TRANSACTION and COMMIT but you'll need to go a step further and rollback if any errors occur.
I have a long running process that holds open a transaction for the full duration. I have no control over the way this is executed. Because a transaction is held open for the full duration, whe...
As long as you don't COMMIT or ROLLBACK a transaction, it's still "running" and potentially holding locks. If your client (application or user) closes the connection to the database before committing, any still running transactions will be rolled back and terminated.
