lord.fist wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have table1 that needs to be locked until some processing is done in
> ASP.NET. I know how to lock table but i dont know how address the
> transaction.
>
> To sum up. I know i can do this:
>
> SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
>
> //some transaction to do
>
> COMMIT
> SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED
>
>
> but... I dont know how to keep the lock (keep queries in same
> transaction) between 2 reconnects to a SQL Server. So it should be like
> this:
>
> ASP.net (abstracted):
>
> SqlCommand("exec somestoredproc",Connection)
> Connection.Close
> //do some work
> SqlCommand("exec somestoredproc2",Connection)
> Connection.Close
>
> All the time while ASP.net is doing this table1 needs to be locked for
> inserting and updating. Only after execing "somestoredproc2" table1 can
> be unlocked. So basicly I need:
>
> //ISOLATE
> //BEGIN TRANSACTION
> SqlCommand("exec somestoredproc",Connection)
> Connection.Close
> //do some asp.net work
> SqlCommand("exec somestoredproc2",Connection)
> Connection.Close
> //COMMIT
> //RELEASE LOCK
>
> Can anyone please help me with this?

Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> lord.fist (lord.fist@spam.email.htnet.hr) writes:
>> but... I dont know how to keep the lock (keep queries in same
>> transaction) between 2 reconnects to a SQL Server. So it should be like
>> this:
>
> But why would you disconnect and connect? Yes, this is the common model
> with ASP programming, but if you need to keep a transaction alive, you
> should also keep the connection open.
>
>

> but... I dont know how to keep the lock (keep queries in same
> transaction) between 2 reconnects to a SQL Server. So it should be like
> this:

wrote:
> Ew. It just occurred to me that he is probably doing this in between
> ASP.NET *requests*. Yuck.
>
> Erland's right; the solution to your problem (if this is indeed what you
> are doing) is: "Don't do this." Even if you find a way to make it
> happen (I know the way, but I won't help you shoot yourself in the
> foot), it will *kill* your database performance".
>
> -Dave

> I know all of this but to tell the truth i am using SqlBulkInsert class
>
> and then executing some stored procedure. The thing is they are not
> in the same system thread and not even in the same process. So they
> should be somewhat organized that bulk inserted table doesn't f*** up
> things before everything is ready.