Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
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.
Reading things like this post on Dan Guzman’s blog, I wonder: why isn’t SET XACT_ABORT ON the default behavior? Is there a case where it’s harmful, or much less desirable/efficient than SET XACT_ABORT OFF?
It’s an automatic response to an error, it’s more desirable if you can handle the error and recover from it. If the transaction automatically rolls back then you don’t get this opportunity.
The problem Dan mentions in his blog arises because of the abort from the client, within SQL this abort doesn’t exist. Hence within SQL the default is not to automatically abort transactions.