Version:
UDB Version 8.1 SQL PL

Example:
BEGIN NOT ATOMIC
...
SQL STATEMENT 1
SIGNAL SQLSTATE '70000'
SQL STATEMENT 2
END

The spec says that in the above example the SQL STATEMENT 1 will NEITHER be rolled back or commited? What DOES this mean??? If it is neither rolled back or commited then is it in limbo???

In my testing the SQL STATEMENT 1 was an insert into a table A and after the run of the above procedure the insert is NOT executed!

ATOMIC Compound Statement
The ATOMIC compound statement, as the name suggests, can be thought of as a singular whole—if any unhandled error conditions arise within it, all statements which have been executed up to that point are considered to have failed as well and are therefore rolled back. ATOMIC compound statements cannot be nested inside other ATOMIC compound statements.

In addition, you cannot use SAVEPOINTs or issue explicit COMMITs or ROLLBACKs from within an ATOMIC compound statement.

NOTE

COMMIT, ROLLBACK, SAVEPOINTS and nested ATOMIC compound statements are not allowed within an ATOMIC compound statement.


NOT ATOMIC Compound Statement
If an unhandled error (that is, no condition handler has been declared for the SQLSTATE raised) occurs within the compound statement, any work which is completed before the error will not be rolled back, but will not be committed either. The group of statements can only be rolled back if the unit of work is explicitly rolled back using ROLLBACK or ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT . You can also COMMIT successful statements if it makes sense to do so.

Sathyaram_s:

Your definition is in sync with the book!

My question was specific to NOT ATOMIC - If the successfull SQL statements (before the error happened) are not committed or rolled back then what really happens to these statements? Or is it just how it has been implemented

They are not rolled back OR commited, so it's up to you to either do a ROLLBACK or COMMIT to determine what happens to them.