> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Starkey <j...@jimstarkey.net> > Sent: May 19, 2022 3:08 PM
> They have nothing to do with each other. A transaction isc_tpd_consistency > keeps two phase table locks to make transactions serializable. An > attachment with isc_dpb_dbkey_scope is about preserving dbkeys across > transactions within an attachment. I was referring to the fact that transaction isc_tpd_consistency also preserves dbkeys. I should have been clearer. Curious, why didn't Cognos simply use a single transaction w/ isc_tpd_consistency? Why was an attachment/connection level approach required? The 2 approaches provide the same outcome, no? Sean > On 5/19/2022 2:35 PM, Leyne, Sean wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paul Beach <pbe...@mail.ibphoenix.com> > >> Sent: May 19, 2022 12:10 PM > >> It maintains all the rdb$db_key values for the length of a connection - > >> i.e. > >> they are not allowed to change. An internal transaction gets started for > this. > >> It was introduced to support Cognos' Powerhouse 4GL product which > >> made extensive use of db_keys. > >> > >> Obviously it can have issues re. garbage collection... > > That is already supported by "snapshot" (isc_tpb_consistency) > transactions, no? > > > > If not, how is it different, aside from the connection vs. transaction > > level? > > > > > > Sean Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
