> I didn't realize that you were working with a new record. So is this the
> sequence?

> 1 -- transaction started
> 2 -- new record added to recordset
> 3 -- user modifies record
> 4 -- record is saved
> 5 -- user continues to modify
> 6 -- user cancels So, we want to roll back to (3).
> 7 -- transaction rolled back.

> Am I following you? If so, why have step (4)?

Not quite, but close. More like:

1 -- add new record(s) to recordset(s)
2 -- display recordset to user in UI, user modifies records, hits save
3 -- transaction started
4 -- save parent record
5 -- save child records / child record recieves error during save
6 -- transaction rolled back (to 3)
7 -- user corrects error, hits save again
8 -- save fails b/c parent record cannot commit (thinks it is updating instead of inserting)

In writing, this, I begin to wonder if the problem is not a matter that the transaction should start before 1 instead of after 2...

Thanks again.

. . . . . . . -- Eric