Re: PostgreSQL+ (Beta) and Active Server Pages with @TRANSACTION=REQUIRED
От | Chris Gamache |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL+ (Beta) and Active Server Pages with @TRANSACTION=REQUIRED |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20021015172432.66608.qmail@web13806.mail.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PostgreSQL+ (Beta) and Active Server Pages with @TRANSACTION=REQUIRED (Chris Gamache <cgg007@yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Unknown Connect Option (Set)
|
Список | pgsql-odbc |
A person by the name of Eric was trying to encapsulate an ODBC connection in a COM+ object (see thread "psqlODBC driver and COM+" http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Unknown+connect+option+(Set)%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=21a671cb.0205281138.1da6cb56%40posting.google.com&rnum=2 ) He did a trace and was on to something with SQL_ATTR_ENLIST_IN_DTC. Of course we know that PostgreSQL doesn't support Distributed Transactions... Would it be possible to just plug the hole up and make that staticly set to not enlist the connection in DTC? I think that would get us one step closer to being able to plug PostgreSQL into COM+ (be it MTS or whatever) ... I'm nearly positive that MTS (and COM+ for that matter) _does_ provide a way to work with non-distributed transactions. Why else would MS Access and other inflexible database technologies work within MTS? CG --- Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> wrote: > > Maybe MTS requires Distributed transaction support but > PostgreSQL(and of cource psqlodbc driver) doesn't support it. > I'm not sure if MTS provides the option to work with non- > distributed system. > > regards, > Hiroshi Inoue > http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
В списке pgsql-odbc по дате отправления: