T
TonyT
Hi Allen,
I was trying to troubleshoot an issue I was having with a Transaction, and
came accross your guide http://allenbrowne.com/ser-37.html
The problem I was having was an error 3034 when trying to Rollback a failed
transaction. The resolution to my problem was to change the order of my exit
routine to rollback the transaction before setting the db=Nothing code, but I
see your code has it as I originally did - ie. Set db=Nothing before the
Rollback.
This failed the rollback with the above error (3034).
It makes sense in hindsight that the database object should be open when the
execute statements are rolled back, but I've not had it fail before, and I'm
sure I've used it in that order myself previously.
So, my question is, is this a different approach required by 2007 (my
previous experience has all been with 2000), or are there other factors that
determine the order in which objects must be set to Nothing and Transaction
Processing?
I was trying to troubleshoot an issue I was having with a Transaction, and
came accross your guide http://allenbrowne.com/ser-37.html
The problem I was having was an error 3034 when trying to Rollback a failed
transaction. The resolution to my problem was to change the order of my exit
routine to rollback the transaction before setting the db=Nothing code, but I
see your code has it as I originally did - ie. Set db=Nothing before the
Rollback.
This failed the rollback with the above error (3034).
It makes sense in hindsight that the database object should be open when the
execute statements are rolled back, but I've not had it fail before, and I'm
sure I've used it in that order myself previously.
So, my question is, is this a different approach required by 2007 (my
previous experience has all been with 2000), or are there other factors that
determine the order in which objects must be set to Nothing and Transaction
Processing?