transactionscope

问题 I have "inherited" a little C# method that creates an ADO.NET SqlCommand object and loops over a list of items to be saved to the database (SQL Server 2005). Right now, the traditional SqlConnection/SqlCommand approach is used, and to make sure everything works, the two steps (delete old entries, then insert new ones) are wrapped into an ADO.NET SqlTransaction. using (SqlConnection _con = new SqlConnection(_connectionString)) { using (SqlTransaction _tran = _con.BeginTransaction()) { try {

问题 I have decided to try using a TransactionScope , rather than the SqlTransaction class. The following is my code, wrapped in a TransactionScope : using (var transaction = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope()) { using (MySqlCommand cmd = new MySqlCommand(sql, connection)) { if (listParameters != null && listParameters.Count > 0) { foreach (string currentKey in listParameters.Keys) { cmd.Parameters.Add(new MySqlParameter(currentKey, GetDictionaryValue(listParameters, currentKey))); } }

问题 I've got a Publication table and a Receipt table. When I publish data out, I track it in the Publication table. When my test client receives that publication back from the broker, I track it in the Receipt table. My Publication table has a denormalized ReceiptCount column on it for ease of reporting. When my test consumer receives the Publication, the following code executes: try { using (var context = new PublicationVerifierEntities()) { using (var transaction = new TransactionScope()) { if

问题 I'm using PowerShell transactions; which create a CommittableTransaction with an IsolationLevel of Serializable. The problem is that when I am executing a Transaction in this context all SELECTs are blocked on the tables affected by the transaction on any connection besides the one executing the transaction. I can perform gets from within the transaction but not anywhere else. This includes SSMS and other cmdlets executions. Is this expected behavior? Seems like I'm missing something... PS

问题 Background: I have an ASP.NET MVC application that wraps controller actions in a TransactionScope using an Action Filter. Further downstream (in my infrastructure layer); I'd like to open up a new ADO.NET connection (to the same db as my outer TransactionScope, if that is relevent) and have it participate in its own transaction - without being tied to the current TransactionScope started at the controller level; how do I go about doing this? 回答1: You pass in TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew

问题 We know that TransactionScope class can use user-defined timeout value. But timeout exception is thrown while exiting from the using {} block. How to throw this timeoutexception immediately after elapsed timeout value? 回答1: This is not possible. The TransactionScope simply stores the time that you started the transaction, then checks that time when committing the transaction. It has no way to throw an exception at any arbitrary point. In general, the only exception that can be thrown at any

问题 SQL Server Compact doesn't support distributed transactions. So if there are more than one connection inside TransactionScope - the exception is thrown. Is there any way to setup ADO.NET provider to use one connection for the same connection string? I understand I can use usual transactions through connection.BeginTransaction but TransactionScope is preferable for me. UPDATE . Sorry, I didn't mention I work with Entity Framework, so I have no control on SQL Command. I may just pass connection

问题 Is there a way to make DocumentDb transactions part of an external transaction from C#? This is a follow-up question from here and failure in transaction 3 below should rollback any documentDb updates. using (var scope = new TransactionScope) { //first transaction //write to document db //third transaction } 回答1: I solved this by implementing IEnlistmentNotification on DocumentDbRepository interacting with DocumentDb n the following way - Implement the interface Make the current instance part

问题 I'm using sql transactions as containers for APPLOCKS and other concurrency mechanisms and so I sometimes create transactions at various isolation levels which only read data and don't write. I believe that in these situations, logically, COMMIT and ROLLBACK have identical outcomes. For performance reasons, I'd like to know which one is cheaper/quicker for the server to execute? Is unavoidable bookkeeping required that is optimized for the COMMIT case and additional overhead for ROLLBACK even

问题 My system write some data to a SQL Server DB (2008), extracts it later and processes it some more, before writing it to an Oracle (10g) DB. I've wrapped my SQL Server interactions in a TransactionScope but when I try the same think with my Oracle interactions I get a `TranactionAbortedException - "The transaction has aborted". Remove the TransactionScope, and everything works OK. I could always revert back to manually managing my own transactions, but I'm hoping there is a simple solution.