title: Entity Framework 6 transaction rollback
body: <p>With EF6 you have a new transaction which can be used like:</p>
  
  <pre><code>using (var context = new PostEntityContainer())
          {
              using (var dbcxtransaction = context.Database.BeginTransaction())
              {
                  try
                  {
                      PostInformation NewPost = new PostInformation()
                      {
                          PostId = 101,
                          Content = "This is my first Post related to Entity Model",
                          Title = "Transaction in EF 6 beta"
                      };
                      context.Post_Details.Add(NewPost);
                      context.SaveChanges();
                      PostAdditionalInformation PostInformation = new PostAdditionalInformation()
                      {
                          PostId = (101),
                          PostName = "Working With Transaction in Entity Model 6 Beta Version"
                      };
  
                      context.PostAddtional_Details.Add(PostInformation);
                      context.SaveChanges();
  
                      dbcxtransaction.Commit();
                  }
                  catch
                  {
                      dbcxtransaction.Rollback();
                  }
              }
          }
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Is rollback actually needed when things go sideways? I'm curious because the Commit description says: "Commits the underlying store transaction."</p>
  
  <p>Whereas the Rollback description says: "Rolls back the underlying store transaction."</p>
  
  <p>This makes me curious, because it looks to me that if Commit isn't called, the previously executed commands will not be stored (which seems logical to me). But if that is the case, what would the reason be to call the Rollback function? In EF5 I used TransactionScope which didn't have a Rollback function (only a Complete) which seemed logical to me. Due to MS DTC reasons I cannot use the TransactionScope anymore, but I also cannot use a try catch like the example above (i.e., I only need the Commit).</p>