FreeTDS Development Group

[John Anderson <ardour AT semiosix.com>]

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 05:37, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On 09 Oct 2003, John Anderson <ardour AT semiosix.com> wrote:
> > So my code processes the data (1 row) that it needs, and then tries to
> > execute the commit. Since the other (useless) resultset is still
> > pending, the commit attempt fails.
> > 
> > Seems to me that from an application point of view it would make sense
> > for a commit attempt to automatically cancel any pending result sets?
> 
> Philosophically, regardless of what documentation says?  You could take
> that point of view, or you could say that an out-of-place commit indicates
> a logic flaw in the application, because results have to be fetched or
> explicitly cancelled.  

Not wanting to be argumentative about this - you guys know a lot more
about it than I do - looking at

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbc/htm/odch14pr_8.asp

I find

Committing or rolling back a transaction has the following effect on
cursors and access plans:

      * All cursors are closed, and access plans for prepared statements
        on that connection are deleted.
      * All cursors are closed, and access plans for prepared statements
        on that connection remain intact.
      * All cursors remain open, and access plans for prepared
        statements on that connection remain intact.

Which to me implies that there's no need to explicitly close a cursor
before committing or rolling back a transaction, because the call to
SqlEndTran will do it for me - if that's the option the driver
implements. And the driver will also give me back the relevant value
from SqlGetInfo with SQL_CURSOR_COMMIT_BEHAVIOR.

bye
John