You're right, it would. Depending on the requirements, you could very easily create a log file of just the ROOT.KEY values that were rolled back and force an entry of a reason code, time/date stamp, user information, all kinds of stuff, but I think this solution gives the original requestor an option to consider for whatever their needs are, which is all I was attempting to do, not a finished product.
Without keeping the lock inside the Start/Commit/Rollback, you're either going to have to keep track of numbers skipped, or a log of why they were skipped. That's a given if one of the requirements is to account for all key values. What more can you expect than a synopsis in this forum? After all, it is expert advice, and sometimes a lot of prewritten programming, for free. BobW > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Nichol > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:54 PM > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: RE: [U2] Best practice for Sequential IDs using TRANSACTION START > & COMMIT/RO... > [snip] > > This is all well and good if the "commit" goes ahead, but if "rollback" is > the action, don't you lose a supposedly sequential "root key" into the > vapours? > > Never to be seen again? > > That'd make an auditor go spare..... "61,62,63,65,66... Hang on! Where's > 64? .... Stop the presses! Everybody down and look for 64..." ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
