Hi Mike,

>>>But the real question is, do you know if there is any truth to the idea that the transaction is "safe" since all tables are in a single DBC?

>>It is also 'safe' if the tables are accross different DBCs. It really does not matter. If wrapping updates in mutliple DBCs into one transaction, and the transactions fails and you do a rollback all changes are rolled back.

>Well, it's Drew's opinion that there is a risk which I'm trying to understand by getting more input on it.

Maybe you should ask drew why he thinks this... I really don't know.

>>Why not including it into the executable itself?

>If I'm not mistaken, the view requires a lock on the DBC. This lock cannot be obtained if the DBC is in the exe.

A lock takes time. If the DBC is in the executable or is openened exclusively (or exclusive oplock mode) no lock is issued because it is not needed. Hence the performance advantage. It works like a charm.

Walter,