Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 77081
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 10, 20262026-05-10T20:46:27+00:00 2026-05-10T20:46:27+00:00

I´m using Transaction Binding=Explicit Unbind in the connection string as recommended here since I´m

  • 0

I´m using Transaction Binding=Explicit Unbind in the connection string as recommended here since I´m also using TransactionScope with timeout. The problem is that the connections does not seem to close after being disposed and eventually there are no more connections available in the connection pool. I got the same result when I modified the TransactionTimeoutIssueDemo (see the link) and ran TransactionScopeTest() (with the explicit unbind connection string) enough times in a loop to use up all available connections in the connection pool. Default value for connections in the pool is 100 but this can be changed by using the setting Max Pool Size =10 for instance. It seems that the connections will not be released when using explicit unbind even though both the SqlConnection and the TransactionScope are used with the using clause. Anyone know how to handle this?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-10T20:46:28+00:00Added an answer on May 10, 2026 at 8:46 pm

    The connections only seem to stay in the pool and not being reused in case you get an exception, just like the example. If you increase the timeout the connection will be reused.

    A workaround to this problem is to clear the connection pool in case you get an exception like this:

    using (SqlConnection con = new SqlConnection(connectionString)) {     con.Open();     try     {         Console.WriteLine('Server is {0}', con.ServerVersion);         Console.WriteLine('Clr is {0}', Environment.Version);         for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)         {             using (SqlCommand cmd = con.CreateCommand())             {                 cmd.CommandText = 'insert into TXTEST values ( ' + i + ' )';                 cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();             }             Console.WriteLine('Row inserted');         }         Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));     }     catch     {         SqlConnection.ClearPool(con);         throw;     } } 

    In most cases the transaction will complete within the timeout and everything will be fine and dandy. When the transaction actually do timeout you clear the pool in order to clean up the dirty connections that won’t get reused. This will of course affect other connections in the pool that isn’t affected by this problem.

    This is a ugly workaround but it seems to work.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 201k
  • Answers 201k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer It looks to me you are looking for a spanning… May 12, 2026 at 8:14 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Your title question and your example are completely different. I'll… May 12, 2026 at 8:14 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer You could create a view and then map that view… May 12, 2026 at 8:14 pm

Related Questions

I´m using the LinqDataSource to populate a grid. But now I need the SQL
I´m dynamically creating an instance of a class with reflection and this works fine,
I´m a currently running a global hook that watches for a certain window and
If my code throws an exception, sometimes - not everytime - the jsf presents

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.