On Feb 5, 5:09 pm, "Mike Ross" <m..._at_perq.com> wrote:
> "Valentin Minzatu" <valentinminz..._at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170712850.520519.190770_at_l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "Mike Ross" <m..._at_perq.com> wrote:
> >> I have been migrating my company's application to an Oracle 10g database,
> >> and I have run into a strange problem:
>
> >> I begin a transaction, execute several SQL insert and update statements,
> >> then call a Stored Procedure that does a table insert, then I do a couple
> >> more SQL insert statements, and then I rollback the transaction. All of
> >> the
> >> activity is rolled back - EXCEPT the insert that happened in the Stored
> >> Procedure - that activity remains in the database. The Stored Proc is
> >> very
> >> simple - it just inserts a row into a table, and it doesn't declare any
> >> of
> >> its own transactions or anythign like that.
>
> >> I am using Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 and ADO.NET to do this, using
> >> OracleCommand and OracleTransaction objects, calling
> >> OracleCommand.ExecuteNonQuery to submit the commands to Oracle.
>
> >> Can anybody help me understand why the Stored Procedure activity is NOT
> >> getting rolled back?
>
> > Maybe because you call the SP in auto-commit mode? I am not even
> > familiar with ADO .NET techonology, but given that there is no
> > explicit commit in your stored procedure that's what I would next look
> > at.
>
> I'm not explicitly setting an auto-commit mode. Is it set on by default in
> stored procs?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
to rephrase what Valentin said:
Is autocommit mode set ON in .NET/ADO???
Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 08:18:04 CST
