Search Results

Search found 2993 results on 120 pages for 'distributed transactions'.

Page 18/120 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Membership.GetUser() within TransactionScope throws TransactionAbortedException

    - by Bob Kaufman
    The following code throws a TransactionAbortedException with message "The transaction has aborted": using ( MyDataContext context = new MyDataContext() ) { using ( TransactionScope transactionScope = new TransactionScope() ) { Guid accountID = new Guid( Request.QueryString[ "aid" ] ); Account account = ( from a in context.Accounts where a.UniqueID.Equals( accountID ) select a ).SingleOrDefault(); IQueryable < My_Data_Access_Layer.Login > loginList = from l in context.Logins where l.AccountID == account.AccountID select l; foreach ( My_Data_Access_Layer.Login login in loginList ) { MembershipUser membershipUser = Membership.GetUser( login.UniqueID ); } } } The error occurs at the call to Membership.GetUser(). My Connection String is: <add name="MyConnectionString" connectionString="Data Source=localhost\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;Integrated Security=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /> Everything I've read tells me that TransactionScope should just get magically applied to the Membership calls. The user exists (I'd expect a null return otherwise.)

    Read the article

  • sqlite - any improvements for this attach code (running multiple sql commands transactionally in sql

    - by Greg
    Hi, Is this code solid? I've tried to use "using" etc. Basically a method to pass as sequenced list of SQL commands to be run against a Sqlite database. I assume it is true that in sqlite by default all commands run in a single connection are handled transactionally? Is this true? i.e. I should not have to (and haven't got in the code at the moment) a BeginTransaction, or CommitTransaction. It's using http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com/ as the sqlite ADO.net database provider. private int ExecuteNonQueryTransactionally(List<string> sqlList) { int totalRowsUpdated = 0; using (var conn = new SQLiteConnection(_connectionString)) { // Open connection (one connection so should be transactional - confirm) conn.Open(); // Apply each SQL statement passed in to sqlList foreach (string s in sqlList) { using (var cmd = new SQLiteCommand(conn)) { cmd.CommandText = s; totalRowsUpdated = totalRowsUpdated + cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); } } } return totalRowsUpdated; }

    Read the article

  • Cannot use READPAST in snapshot isolation mode

    - by Marcus
    I have a process which is called from multiple threads which does the following: Start transaction Select unit of work from work table with by finding the next row where IsProcessed=0 with hints (UPDLOCK, HOLDLOCK, READPAST) Process the unit of work (C# and SQL stored procedures) Commit the transaction The idea of this is that a thread dips into the pool for the "next" piece of work, and processes it, and the locks are there to ensure that a single piece of work is not processed twice. (the order doesn't matter). All this has been working fine for months. Until today that is, when I happened to realise that despite enabling snapshot isolation and making it the default at the database level, the actual transaction creation code was manually setting an isolation level of "ReadCommitted". I duly changed that to "Snapshot", and of course immediately received the "You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ" error message. Oops! The main reason for locking the row was to "mark the row" in such a way that the "mark" would be removed when the transaction that applied the mark was committed and the lock seemed to be the best way to do this, since this table isn't read otherwise except by these threads. If I were to use the IsProcessed flag as the lock, then presumably I would need to do the update first, and then select the row I just updated, but I would need to employ the NOLOCK flag to know whether any other thread had set the flag on a row. All sounds a bit messy. The easiest option would be to abandon the snapshot isolation mode altogether, but the design of step #3 requires it. Any bright ideas on the best way to resolve this problem? Thanks Marcus

    Read the article

  • Hangs with LINQ-SQL Server and TransactionScope

    - by Zian Choy
    I'm encountering a hang when the program tries to access the fruit database. I've already enabled network access MSDTC on both my development computer and the SQL Server server. Code: (pardon the code coloring...SO's misinterpreting my VB .NET) Using ts As New TransactionScope Dim fruit As New FruitDataContext Dim thingies As New ThingiesDataContext If (From f In fruit.tblApples Where f.Rotten = True).Count >= 1 Then 'Record today's date as the day that the rotten apples were dumped. End If 'Other complicated code that uses ThingiesDataContext and FruitDataContext du.SubmitChanges() ts.Complete() End Using

    Read the article

  • What is causing this OverflowError in Django?

    - by orokusaki
    I'm using a normal ModelForm.save() to create an object, and this exception comes up. It worked fine before until I added commit_manually, transaction.rollback() and transaction.commit() to my view. Has anyone else ran into this? Is this because of sqlite3? OverflowError: long too big to convert C:\Python26\Lib\site-packages\django-trunk\django\db\backends\sqlite3\base.py in execute, line 197 params: (203866156270872165269663274649746494334L,) query: u'SELECT (1) AS "a", "auth_user"."id", "auth_user"."username", "auth_user"."first_name", "auth_user"."last_name", "auth_user"."email", "auth_user"."password", "auth_user"."is_staff", "auth_user"."is_active", "auth_user"."is_superuser", "auth_user"."last_login", "auth_user"."date_joined" FROM "auth_user" WHERE "auth_user"."id" = ? LIMIT 1' self <django.db.backends.sqlite3.base.SQLiteCursorWrapper object at 0x015D5A98> Why would that L param be passed in, and

    Read the article

  • EJB3 Transaction Propogation

    - by Matt S.
    I have a stateless bean something like: @Stateless public class MyStatelessBean implements MyStatelessLocal, MyStatelessRemote { @PersistenceContext(unitName="myPC") private EntityManager mgr; @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.SUPPORTED) public void processObjects(List<Object> objs) { // this method just processes the data; no need for a transaction for(Object obj : objs) { this.process(obj); } } @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRES_NEW) public void process(Object obj) { // do some work with obj that must be in the scope of a transaction this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.flush(); } } The typically usage then is the client would call processObjects(...), which doesn't actually interact with the entity manager. It does what it needs to do and calls process(...) individually for each object to process. The duration of process(...) is relatively short, but processObjects(...) could take a very long time to run through everything. Therefore I don't want it to maintain an open transaction. I do need the individual process(...) operations to operate within their own transaction. This should be a new transaction for every call. Lastly I'd like to keep the option open for the client to call process(...) directly. I've tried a number of different transaction types: never, not supported, supported (on processObjects) and required, requires new (on process) but I get TransactionRequiredException every time merge() is called. I've been able to make it work by splitting up the methods into two different beans: @Stateless @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.NOT_SUPPORTED) public class MyStatelessBean1 implements MyStatelessLocal1, MyStatelessRemote1 { @EJB private MyStatelessBean2 myBean2; public void processObjects(List<Object> objs) { // this method just processes the data; no need for a transaction for(Object obj : objs) { this.myBean2.process(obj); } } } @Stateless public class MyStatelessBean2 implements MyStatelessLocal2, MyStatelessRemote2 { @PersistenceContext(unitName="myPC") private EntityManager mgr; @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRES_NEW) public void process(Object obj) { // do some work with obj that must be in the scope of a transaction this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.flush(); } } but I'm still curious if it's possible to accomplish this in one class. It looks to me like the transaction manager only operates at the bean level, even when individual methods are given more specific annotations. So if I mark one method in a way to prevent the transaction from starting calling other methods within that same instance will also not create a transaction, no matter how they're marked? I'm using JBoss Application Server 4.2.1.GA, but non-specific answers are welcome / preferred.

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework without Transaction?

    - by Sue
    Is there a way to use EF without transaction? I have very simple single insert and don't want to roll-back when something goes wrong as there may be a trigger logging then raising error from the DB side which I have no control over. I just want to insert then catch any exceptions but don't want to roll-back.

    Read the article

  • transaction log shipping sql server 2005 to 2008

    - by Andrew Jahn
    I have a reporting setup with SSRS on our sql server 2005 database. Because sql server 2008 is not supported by the main program which populates our database we are stuck with 2005 on our prod database. Unfortunately when I run our weekly check reports the web interface constantly times out because the server cant do the conversion to PDF. I've read that sql server 2008's SSRS is ALOT better with memory management. I was wondering if I can do some kind transact log shipping subscription publication from 2005 to 2008? Am I chasing a dream here.

    Read the article

  • Is there something like a "long running offline transaction" for NHibernate or any other ORM?

    - by Vilx-
    In essence this is a followup of this question. I'm beginning to feel that I should give up the whole idea, but I'll give it one more shot. What I want is pretty much like a DB transaction. It should track my changes to the DB and then in the end allow me to either commit or rollback them. If I insert an object, I should get it back in my next (appropriate) SELECT query. If I delete it, future SELECT queries should not return it. Etc. But there is one catch - this transaction would be very long running. It would start when the user opened a form (I'm talking about Windows Forms here), and the commit/rollback would be when the user closed it(with OK/Cancel). So it could take anywhere between seconds and days. This requirement rules out a standard DB transaction because that would lock the tables/rows it touched, and other users wouldn't be able to use the system. Also the transaction should not commit ANY changes to the DB until it was really committed. So if one user makes some changes, others don't see them until OK button is hit. This prevents errors in case the computer crashes or is disconnected from the network. I'm quite OK if the solution puts constraints on my model (I'm using MSSQL 2008, btw). I can design the DB/code any way I like. I'm also fine with the idea that a commit could fail because someone already modified one of the objects my transaction touched. Is there anything like this? I looked at NHibernate.Burrow, but I'm not sure that that's the thing I want. Added: It's the very beginning of the project so I'm not tied to NHibernate. I started out with it but I can still change easily.

    Read the article

  • How to automate disbursement of electronic payments from one bank account to 20,000 other bank accou

    - by Dylan West
    I am helping a startup business to launch and I will be building or finding a shopping cart software for its website. There will only be one product for sale, but anytime someone buys a product, I have to use customer information like their zipcode and which distributor they bought from to calculate commissions that will go to the different distributors. All the incoming money will be sent to one sort of escrow account for a few weeks, and after that few weeks is over, I need to be able to "throw the switch" and cause each of the 20,000 distributors to get their rightful share of that escrow account, depending on the data stored that reflects their sales activity and commissions due. Is this something I can write a script to handle? Better yet, is this something an inexpensive or open source solution can handle, or something that can be setup in something like Paypal? Or is a better approach to somehow create a webpage where each distributor can login to and see their commissions due and initiate the account transfer on their own, but the web app restrict them from transferring more than what they're due? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Cannot enlist Synchronization. LocalTransactionCoordinator is completing or completed issue with hib

    - by Bijendra Singh
    I am getting Cannot enlist Synchronization. LocalTransactionCoordinator is completing or completed exception when integrating my method is called from the portlet. I am using spring transaction management for handling all the hibernate transaction in the spring configuration file through AOP. When I run my hibernate dao method for persisting the data through Junit its working fine. Exception description: I am facing an issue that is when I run my code through unit test case data is getting updated in database properly but when I run the same code with integration with portlet my code is executing finely but after the completion of transaction the records is not getting updated to database. The following error can be seen in the log which is [4/7/10 23:06:38:685 MDT] 0000006c LocalTranCoor E WLTC0014E: Cannot enlist Synchronization. LocalTransactionContainment is completing or completed. [4/7/10 23:06:38:689 MDT] 0000006c LocalTransact E J2CA0026E: Method addSync caught java.lang.IllegalStateException: Cannot enlist Synchronization. LocalTransactionCoordinator is completing or completed. at com.ibm.ws.LocalTransaction.LocalTranCoordImpl.enlistSynchronization(LocalTranCoordImpl.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.LocalTransactionWrapper.addSync(LocalTransactionWrapper.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.ConnectionManager.initializeForUOW(ConnectionManager.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.ConnectionManager.involveMCInTran(ConnectionManager.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.ConnectionManager.associateConnection(ConnectionManager.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.ConnectionManager.associateConnection(ConnectionManager.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.jdbc.WSJdbcConnection.reactivate(WSJdbcConnection.java(Compiled Code)) at com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.jdbc.WSJdbcConnection.getWarnings(WSJdbcConnection.java:1539)

    Read the article

  • Locking a table for getting MAX in LINQ

    - by Hossein Margani
    Hi Every one! I have a query in LINQ, I want to get MAX of Code of my table and increase it and insert new record with new Code. just like the IDENTITY feature of SQL Server, but here my Code column is char(5) where can be alphabets and numeric. My problem is when inserting a new row, two concurrent processes get max and insert an equal Code to the record. my command is: var maxCode = db.Customers.Select(c=>c.Code).Max(); var anotherCustomer = db.Customers.Where(...).SingleOrDefault(); anotherCustomer.Code = GenerateNextCode(maxCode); db.SubmitChanges(); I ran this command cross 1000 threads and each updating 200 customers, and used a Transaction with IsolationLevel.Serializable, after two or three execution an error occured: using (var db = new DBModelDataContext()) { DbTransaction tran = null; try { db.Connection.Open(); tran = db.Connection.BeginTransaction(IsolationLevel.Serializable); db.Transaction = tran; . . . . tran.Commit(); } catch { tran.Rollback(); } finally { db.Connection.Close(); } } error: Transaction (Process ID 60) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction. other IsolationLevels generates this error: Row not found or changed. Please help me, thank you.

    Read the article

  • Does anyone know what these Oracle AQ JMS XA properties do?

    - by Alan Chan
    I'm using Oracle Advanced Queues via JMS from within Websphere App Server. Does anyone know what effect the following two properties have:- - oracle.jms.useEmulatedXA - oracle.jms.useNativeXA I have seen mentioned in some blogs and quick start guides, usually in sentences along the lines of "Add -Doracle.jms.useEmulatedXA=false -Doracle.jms.useNativeXA=true to the JAVA_PROPERTIES variable", without any explanation as to what they do:- e.g. http://biemond.blogspot.com/2008/11/using-aq-in-weblogic-103.html http://sqltech.cl/doc/oas10gR31/integrate.1013/b28994/adptr_aq.htm#CHDEADFB I'm curious as to what these two properties actually do, and what the implications of setting them are, even though they don't seem to have any affect on our app regardless of whether we set them or not. Googling hasn't given any answers, does anyone have any clue what they actually do?

    Read the article

  • EJB3 with Spring

    - by fish
    I have understood that if I use EJB in Spring context, I get all the same benefits as if I was using it in "pure" EJB3 environment, is this true? I have googled but can't find a definitive, clear answer. For example, let's say I have a session bean that updates some tables in the database and it throws a System Exception. In "pure" EJB3 environment the transaction is rolled back. What if I for example @Autowire this bean using Spring, does Spring take care of the transaction handling same way as does the EJB3 container? Or what? Does it maybe require some specific configuration or is it fully "automatic"?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring ADO.NET - SqlTransaction vs. TransactionScope

    - by marc_s
    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 { SqlCommand _deleteOld = new SqlCommand(......., _con); _deleteOld.Transaction = _tran; _deleteOld.Parameters.AddWithValue("@ID", 5); _con.Open(); _deleteOld.ExecuteNonQuery(); SqlCommand _insertCmd = new SqlCommand(......, _con); _insertCmd.Transaction = _tran; // add parameters to _insertCmd foreach (Item item in listOfItem) { _insertCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); } _tran.Commit(); _con.Close(); } catch (Exception ex) { // log exception _tran.Rollback(); throw; } } } Now, I've been reading a lot about the .NET TransactionScope class lately, and I was wondering, what's the preferred approach here? Would I gain anything (readibility, speed, reliability) by switching to using using (TransactionScope _scope = new TransactionScope()) { using (SqlConnection _con = new SqlConnection(_connectionString)) { .... } _scope.Complete(); } What you would prefer, and why? Marc

    Read the article

  • Hibernate MySQL transaction configuration issue

    - by James
    I'm having trouble starting a transaction with Hibernate and MySQL while running in JUnit. I'm getting a HibernateException which states: "No TransactionManagerLookup specified". I believe this error is because I don't have a proper configuration setting for hibernate.transaction.manager_lookup_class. I see that under the namespace of org.hibernate.transaction there are quite a few different lookup classes that I could use. All of the documentation that I could find on these was very vague. My question is what is the appropriate one for MySQL?

    Read the article

  • How do you deal with denormalization / secondary indexes in database sharding?

    - by Continuation
    Say I have a "message" table with 2 secondary indexes: "recipient_id" "sender_id" I want to shard the "message" table by "recipient_id". That way to retrieve all messages sent to a certain recipient I only need to query one shard. But at the same time, I want to be able to make a query that ask for all messages sent by a certain sender. Now I don't want to send that query to every single shard of the "message" table. One way to do this is to duplicate the data and have a "message_by_sender" table sharded by "sender_id". The problem with that approach is that every time a message has been sent, I need to insert the message into both "message" and "message_by_sender" tables. But what if after inserting into "message" the insertion into "message_by_sender" fail? In that case the message exists in "message" but not in "message_by_sender". How do I make sure that if a message exists in "message" then it also exists in "message_by_sender" without resorting to 2 phase commit? This must be a very common issue for anyone who shards their databases. How do you deal woth it?

    Read the article

  • Sending emails in web applications

    - by Denise
    Hi everyone, I'm looking for some opinions here, I'm building a web application which has the fairly standard functionality of: Register for an account by filling out a form and submitting it. Receive an email with a confirmation code link Click the link to confirm the new account and log in When you send emails from your web application, it's often (usually) the case that there will be some change to the persistence layer. For example: A new user registers for an account on your site - the new user is created in the database and an email is sent to them with a confirmation link A user assigns a bug or issue to someone else - the issue is updated and email notifications are sent. How you send these emails can be critical to the success of your application. How you send them depends on how important it is that the intended recipient receives the email. We'll look at the following four strategies in relation to the case where the mail server is down, using example 1. TRANSACTIONAL & SYNCHRONOUS The sending of the email fails and the user is shown an error message saying that their account could not be created. The application will appear to be slow and unresponsive as the application waits for the connection timeout. The account is not created in the database because the transaction is rolled back. TRANSACTIONAL & ASYNCHRONOUS The transactional definition here refers to sending the email to a JMS queue or saving it in a database table for another background process to pick up and send. The user account is created in the database, the email is sent to a JMS queue for processing later. The transaction is successful and committed. The user is shown a message saying that their account was created and to check their email for a confirmation link. It's possible in this case that the email is never sent due to some other error, however the user is told that the email has been sent to them. There may be some delay in getting the email sent to the user if application support has to be called in to diagnose the email problem. NON-TRANSACTIONAL & SYNCHRONOUS The user is created in the database, but the application gets a timeout error when it tries to send the email with the confirmation link. The user is shown an error message saying that there was an error. The application is slow and unresponsive as it waits for the connection timeout When the mail server comes back to life and the user tries to register again, they are told their account already exists but has not been confirmed and are given the option of having the email re-sent to them. NON-TRANSACTIONAL & ASYNCHRONOUS The only difference between this and transactional & asynchronous is that if there is an error sending the email to the JMS queue or saving it in the database, the user account is still created but the email is never sent until the user attempts to register again. What I'd like to know is what have other people done here? Can you recommend any other solutions other than the 4 I've mentioned above? What's a reasonable way of approaching this problem? I don't want to over-engineer a system that's dealing with the (hopefully) rare situation where my mail server goes down! The simplest thing to do is to code it synchronously, but are there any other pitfalls to this approach? I guess I'm wondering if there's a best practice, I couldn't find much out there by googling.

    Read the article

  • Question about spring transaction propagation

    - by Yousui
    Hi guys, I have a question about spring transaction propagation. If I use @Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED) to annotate a method m1. When execution logic enter m1, if there is already a transaction, m1 will use that one. When after m1, what about the transaction? It ends or still open?(if I call m1 in another method, and after the invocation there is still other things to do). In summary, I want to know when exiting an annotated method, the transaction ends or still open? Great thanks.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate save() and transaction rollback

    - by Marco
    Hi, In Hibernate when i save() an object in a transaction, and then i rollback it, the saved object still remains in the DB. It's strange because this issue doesn't happen with the update() or delete() method, just with save(). Here is the code i'm using: DbEntity dbEntity = getDbEntity(); HibernateUtil.beginTransaction(); Session session = HibernateUtil.getCurrentSession(); session.save(dbEntity); HibernateUtil.rollbackTransaction(); And here is the HibernateUtil class (just the involved functions, i guarantee the getSessionFactory() method works well - there is an Interceptor handler, but it doesn't matter now): private static final ThreadLocal<Session> threadSession = new ThreadLocal<Session>(); private static final ThreadLocal<Transaction> threadTransaction = new ThreadLocal<Transaction>(); /** * Retrieves the current Session local to the thread. * <p/> * If no Session is open, opens a new Session for the running thread. * * @return Session */ public static Session getCurrentSession() throws HibernateException { Session s = (Session) threadSession.get(); try { if (s == null) { log.debug("Opening new Session for this thread."); if (getInterceptor() != null) { log.debug("Using interceptor: " + getInterceptor().getClass()); s = getSessionFactory().openSession(getInterceptor()); } else { s = getSessionFactory().openSession(); } threadSession.set(s); } } catch (HibernateException ex) { throw new HibernateException(ex); } return s; } /** * Start a new database transaction. */ public static void beginTransaction() throws HibernateException { Transaction tx = (Transaction) threadTransaction.get(); try { if (tx == null) { log.debug("Starting new database transaction in this thread."); tx = getCurrentSession().beginTransaction(); threadTransaction.set(tx); } } catch (HibernateException ex) { throw new HibernateException(ex); } } /** * Rollback the database transaction. */ public static void rollbackTransaction() throws HibernateException { Transaction tx = (Transaction) threadTransaction.get(); try { threadTransaction.set(null); if ( tx != null && !tx.wasCommitted() && !tx.wasRolledBack() ) { log.debug("Tyring to rollback database transaction of this thread."); tx.rollback(); } } catch (HibernateException ex) { throw new HibernateException(ex); } finally { closeSession(); } } Thanks

    Read the article

  • ADO.NET zombie transaction bug? How to ensure that commands will not be executed on implicit transac

    - by TN
    e.g. When deadlock occurs, following SQL commands are successfully executed, even if they have assigned SQL transaction that is after rollback. It seems, it is caused by a new implicit transaction that is created on SQL Server. Someone could expect that ADO.NET would throw an exception that the commands are being executed on a zombie transaction. However, such exception is not thrown. (I think this is a bug in ASP.NET.) Moreover, because of zombie transaction the final Dispose() silently ignores the rollback. Any ideas, how can I ensure that nobody can execute commands on implicit transaction? Or, how to check that transaction is zombie? I found that Commit() and Rollback() check for zombie transaction, however I can call them for a test:) I also found that also reading IsolationLevel will do the check, but I am not sure whether simple calling transaction.IsolationLevel.ToString(); will not be removed by a future optimizer. Or do you know any other safe way invoke a getter (without using reflection or IL emitting)?

    Read the article

  • IDbTransaction Rollback Timeout

    - by Ben
    I am dealing with an interesting situation where I perform many database updates in a single transaction. If these updates fail for any reason, the transaction is rolled-back. IDbTransaction transaction try { transaction = connection.BeginTransaction(); // do lots of updates (where at least one fails) transaction.Commit(); } catch { transaction.Rollback(); // results in a timeout exception } finally { connection.Dispose(); } I believe the above code is generally considered the standard template for performing database updates within a transaction. The issue I am facing is that whilst transaction.Rollback() is being issued to SQL Server, it is also timing out on the client. Is there anyway of distinguishing between a timeout to issue the rollback command and a timeout on that command executing to completion? Thanks in advance, Ben

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >