A person by the name of Eric was trying to encapsulate an ODBC connection in a
COM+ object (see thread "psqlODBC driver and COM+"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Unknown+connect+option+(Set)%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=21a671cb.0205281138.1da6cb56%40posting.google.com&rnum=2
)
He did a trace and was on to something with SQL_ATTR_ENLIST_IN_DTC. Of course
we know that PostgreSQL doesn't support Distributed Transactions... Would it be
possible to just plug the hole up and make that staticly set to not enlist the
connection in DTC? I think that would get us one step closer to being able to
plug PostgreSQL into COM+ (be it MTS or whatever) ...
I'm nearly positive that MTS (and COM+ for that matter) _does_ provide a way to
work with non-distributed transactions. Why else would MS Access and other
inflexible database technologies work within MTS?
CG
--- Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Maybe MTS requires Distributed transaction support but
> PostgreSQL(and of cource psqlodbc driver) doesn't support it.
> I'm not sure if MTS provides the option to work with non-
> distributed system.
>
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
> http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
