I'm curious -- what makes you think that transactional replication will
not be fast enough? Put another way, what makes you think that this
method will perform faster than transactional replication? I'm
replicating over 400 tables to 7 subscribers, and latency for
replication is but a few seconds. I think you would have a difficult
time trying to beat that with the level of reliability and scale that
SQL replication can do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Zoister
[mailto:mssqldba-ezmlmshield-x62909113.[Email address protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:40 PM
To: LazyDBA Discussion
Subject: getting current transaction ID


Hi!

I would need a way to get the current transactionID of the connection
(Sql Server 2000 SP3).

The reason for this is that want to create triggers on some tables which
write update-, insert- and delete- history into another table from where
this change history (only the committed entries) is picked up for
notification to another service and I want to notify changes grouped by
transaction so that the subscriber of this notifications doesnt get
inconsistent data. I am not using replication for this because the
changes should be transmitted as fast as possible.

I didnt find such a connection property or function for reading the
current transation ID in the BOL so far.

Does anybody know how such transaction ID can be read in T-SQL if this
is possible at all ?

regards FZ


---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY Website :
http://www.LazyDBA.com To unsubscribe:
http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
For additional commands, e-mail: mssqldba-[Email address protected]


MS Sql Server LazyDBA home page