>>In this context, transactions are merely a tool in achieving an easy rollback.
>
>When I taught SQL (and I still train new developers from time to time), I use this as the starting point.
>
>Maybe a tad oversimplified, I'll walk through this demo...."I have to manually perform three updates....I do the first, I do the second, and then...OH ****.....I didn't do the first one right", and then show that ROLLBACK is their friend. (Yes, I know you guys know all of this, but I thought your final sentence was a perfect segue)
>
>Yes, I could have backed up all three tables. But I show it as a way to safely verify and then 'post' all the changes, or hit the reset button and say, "let's start again"
>
>Yes, that is a simple example. Transactions are for more than just that....the isolation levels in SQL give us some great scenarios.....but that's where I start.


Walter is deliberately harassing me. Yet you permit it. That was my complaint to Koen. They cannot understand the simplest techniques. No one in the community accuses Walter, like I was accused.

I have seen so much stupidity and I'm sick of it. We can do better. Transactions should be a standard, which is better than the piece-meal approach too often used.