> Looking at the latest patch, the comment blocks on top of TBLOCK_STARTED > and TBLOCK_IMPLICIT_INPROGRESS in EndTransactionBlock() need an update > to mention the difference of behavior with chained transactions. And > the same comment rework should be done in UserAbortTransactionBlock() > for TBLOCK_IMPLICIT_INPROGRESS/TBLOCK_STARTED? I made another patch for that. I don't have much confidence with my English spelling so further improvements may be needed.
> If it is too much a change and potential regression, then I think that the > "and chain" variants should be consistent and just raise warnings. We don't have an exact answer for implicit transaction chaining behavior yet. So I think it's better to disable this feature until someone discovers the use cases for this. Permitting AND CHAIN without a detailed specification might cause troubles in future.
disable-implicit-transaction-chaining-v5.patch
Description: Binary data
