"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote: <blockquote type="CITE">Thus spake Kyle Bateman <br />> Do you know if there is a
workaround? In my particular situation, it is critical <br />> that all instances of the sequence actually get
used. If a transaction is <br />> aborted, I lose an instance and everything gets messed up. <p>I had to solve this
oncein another RDBMS (Progress) and this is how I <br />did it. I had a table of available sequence numbers consisting
oftwo <br />fields, a name and a number. The table was seeded with 10 entries for <br />each required sequence
numbered1 to 10. When I needed a sequence I <br />started a transaction and grabbed and locked the lowest numbered
record<br />for that sequence that wasn't locked. I save the number then add 10 to <br />it. If I abort the
transaction,the number remains unchanged. Under <br />this scheme 10 users can be working on the same sequence without
locking<br />others out. Numbers can be used out of sequence from time to time if <br />someone aborts but they all
getused eventually. <p>-- <br />D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves <br /><a
href="http://www.druid.net/darcy/">http://www.druid.net/darcy/</a> | and a sheep voting on <br />+1 416
4242871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.</blockquote> Thanks for taking the time to reply! <pre>--
----------------------------------------------------
Kyle Bateman President, Action Target Inc.
"Viva Yo!" kyle@actarg.com (801)377-8033x101
----------------------------------------------------</pre>
