On 30-5-2015 21:54, Maxim Smyatkin wrote: > Yes, it makes sence. I was wrong as the procedure still depends on the > table, so it's the intented behaviour. But what I still can't understand > is why did it work before? I mean, old tests were using Jaybird's > AutoCommitTransaction which is just a wrapper around Manageable > transaction, so it should give the same results. And my playing around > transactions supports it:
The problem is probably that there is still an active transaction at that point, where before it was already committed or rolled back. Mark -- Mark Rotteveel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
