Do I need to wrap a TransactionScope by try/catch?

The MSDN contains this code example:

// This function takes arguments for 2 connection strings and commands to create a transaction 
// involving two SQL Servers. It returns a value > 0 if the transaction is committed, 0 if the 
// transaction is rolled back. To test this code, you can connect to two different databases 
// on the same server by altering the connection string, or to another 3rd party RDBMS by 
// altering the code in the connection2 code block.
static public int CreateTransactionScope(
    string connectString1, string connectString2,
    string commandText1, string commandText2)
{
    // Initialize the return value to zero and create a StringWriter to display results.
    int returnValue = 0;
    System.IO.StringWriter writer = new System.IO.StringWriter();

    try
    {
        // Create the TransactionScope to execute the commands, guaranteeing
        // that both commands can commit or roll back as a single unit of work.
        using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
        {
            using (SqlConnection connection1 = new SqlConnection(connectString1))
            {
                // Opening the connection automatically enlists it in the 
                // TransactionScope as a lightweight transaction.
                connection1.Open();

                // Create the SqlCommand object and execute the first command.
                SqlCommand command1 = new SqlCommand(开发者_运维技巧commandText1, connection1);
                returnValue = command1.ExecuteNonQuery();
                writer.WriteLine("Rows to be affected by command1: {0}", returnValue);

                // If you get here, this means that command1 succeeded. By nesting
                // the using block for connection2 inside that of connection1, you
                // conserve server and network resources as connection2 is opened
                // only when there is a chance that the transaction can commit.   
                using (SqlConnection connection2 = new SqlConnection(connectString2))
                {
                    // The transaction is escalated to a full distributed
                    // transaction when connection2 is opened.
                    connection2.Open();

                    // Execute the second command in the second database.
                    returnValue = 0;
                    SqlCommand command2 = new SqlCommand(commandText2, connection2);
                    returnValue = command2.ExecuteNonQuery();
                    writer.WriteLine("Rows to be affected by command2: {0}", returnValue);
                }
            }

            // The Complete method commits the transaction. If an exception has been thrown,
            // Complete is not  called and the transaction is rolled back.
            scope.Complete();

        }

    }
    catch (TransactionAbortedException ex)
    {
        writer.WriteLine("TransactionAbortedException Message: {0}", ex.Message);
    }
    catch (ApplicationException ex)
    {
        writer.WriteLine("ApplicationException Message: {0}", ex.Message);
    }

    // Display messages.
    Console.WriteLine(writer.ToString());

    return returnValue;
}

I'm unclear:

• When do I need to catch TransactionAbortedException?
• I'm currently storing a connection to the DB over app lifetime instead of opening and closing it each time. Does this conflict with using transactions? (Or is this a flaw in general?)
• What do I need to do in case I don't care about whether the value was actually inserted? (I just want to make sure the DB does not get corrupted.)

No, TransactionScope doesn't need try/catch, because you should already be using it via using, and the last step (as per the example) should be to mark it completed. If it hits Dispose() without being completed, then it rolls back.

Re your bullets:

• you don't, unless you have a very specific reason to handle that exception; I have never had to handle that scenario in a specific way - it is so unexpected that I'm happy for it to bubble up as a genuine exceptional event
• storing your own open connection is not a great idea here - in addition to the potential threading issues, and having unnecessary open connections: you're ignoring the fact that there is already connection pooling built in by default (at least, with SQL Server). Meaning : you create/open a new SqlConnection as you need it (tightly scoped) and the pool worries about actual connections - you are potentially adding overhead here, but gaining very little (it is very quick to find an existing connection in the pool). If you check carefully, you'll probably notice that even when you Close() your connection, the db-server reports it in use; that is because your Close() merely put it back into the pool for re-use
• nothing much; the transaction should be ACID

It is not a good practice to keep an open connection for ever. If you are working on a webapplication, then you will easily reach to max connections. Better keep the connection instance with you always and open the connnection Do what ever db operation and then close the connection.

Use Using (){}, is the right way to handle the DB component.