RE: Puzzle - Abandoned Terminal.
- From: "Walker, Jed S" <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:45:37 +0000
Thanks Jared, yes, I realized after sending it that my comment was a bit "round
about". A lock would only exist in a transaction, and if the transaction wasn't
committed or rolled-back then a "shutdown normal" would do no good (whether it
was holding a lock or not). Sorry, a bit off the trail and not precise on that
comment. Newbies, definitely read up on the various types of shutdown... it'll
save you grief one day.
Jared - I like your title, is there a test for that? ;)
From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Walker, Jed S
Cc: ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Puzzle - Abandoned Terminal.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Walker, Jed S
<Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It would sit, unless you have a profile (or semething else -FW timeout, etc)
that would kill it.
Oracle takes care of deadlocks by killing one of the sessions. If the user
holds a lock (and there is no deadlock) then it will just sit there until the
session is killed (this is why they gave us "shutdown immediate")
Just to clarify for newbies out there, what I think you are referring to
is that prior to the availability of 'shutdown immediate', shutting down
the database when there were open transactions required a shutdown abort.
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
Oracle Blog: http://jkstill.blogspot.com
Home Page: http://jaredstill.com
Other related posts:
