Naming Transactions

Gail Shaw asks, why name transactions?

So what conclusion can we come to here? Pretty much that naming of transactions has one real use, as a form of documentation. Instead of putting a comment above an BEGIN TRANSACTION we can give the transaction a name that indicates what the transaction does, That’s about the only real use.

With two exceptions.

The one reason I have to name transactions:  name and shame.

Related Posts

Phantom Reads

Arun Sirpal sees not-quite-there-yet transactions: With Halloween around the corner what better topic to discuss than phantom reads. A phantom read occurs when rows have been inserted after a read operation and becomes visible in a follow-up read operation within the same transaction. I will show you what this looks like with an example. Please […]

Read More

Schema-Only Optimized Tables Can Still Roll Back

Chris Adkin investigates whether schema-only memory-optimized tables are logged and whether they support transactions the way other tables do: The statement “There is zero logging when DURABILITY=SCHEMA_ONLY” is not factually correct, its more like a minimally logged operation. What is surprising is the fact that logged as advertised for the in-memory engine should result in […]

Read More

Categories

December 2015
MTWTFSS
« Nov Jan »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031