Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)
- From: Ls Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Sidney Chen <huanshengchen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 17:34:04 +0100
No, it wasnt possible to find the blocking SQL because the application
upgrade introduced some queries which didnt use bind variables and caused
constant movement in the shared pool that is why this is has been quite
difficult. However somehow a couple of days after the issue disappeared we
suspect it was probably some end of month batch processing but still
investigating
Thanks
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
- » TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- LS Cheng
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- fairlie rego
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Jonathan Lewis
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Ls Cheng
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Jonathan Lewis
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Ls Cheng
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Sidney Chen
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Ls Cheng
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6)- Sidney Chen
- » Re: TM Contention (locks type 2, 3, 6) - Ls Cheng