RE: TX locks
- From: "Adams, Matthew (GE Consumer & Industrial)" <MATT.ADAMS@xxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:24 -0400
The blocker has the TX enqueue with lmode=3D6, the requestor=20
is requesting a shared lock (lmode=3D4). =20
I've narrowed the issue down to two the same two possibilities
you mentioned:
1) The blocked transaction is attempting to insert the same PK/UK
values and is waiting to see if the first one commits or rolls back.
2) Lack of an available ITL slot in either the table or index. =20
Since maxtrans is set to 255, I'm leaning away from this, although
I am aware of the fact that if there is not enough space in the block=20
to increase the ITL from the default of one, it will wait rather than
expand the ITL, eventually timing out with this 2049 error. I think it =
would
be happening a little less frequently if this were the problem.
Is there any definative method for determine which=20
scenerio is the problem?
Turning on a 10046 trace for the code will be difficult since the =
purchased
app is using an app server (4 tiered architecture !!). I'd have to turn
it on for everything as sessions connected to the database and=20
the trace files would eat up all available space on the server. I don't
have access to the source code.
Examining the statements that the sessions
in question have in the shared pool shows that they vendor IS=20
using bind variables for just
about everything, which is not a bad thing, but it prevents me from =
seeing=20
what values each session is attempting to insert into the tables.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Diego Cutrone
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:55 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TX locks
Matthew,
> Why would two transactions need the same TX enqueue? Is it because
> they are attempting to update the same row locally (which I have =
been=3D20
> unable to prove or disprove yet)? Is it because they are=3D20
> both going after the same rows remotely? Is it a lack of available =
=3D
> slots
> in the rollback segments (ie, not enough rollback segments)?
What kind of TX enqueue waits are you experiencing? TX-6 or TX-4?
TX-6 enqueue waits would indicate that a transaction is trying to lock a =
row
in X mode when that row is currently
being locked by another transaction in an incompatible mode. (most =
surely
another TX-6 lock) . This is an application issue more
than a database issue.
TX-4 is a complete different matter. I faced TX-4 problems twice. The =
first
one was related to the lack of free ITL slots
in a table (or index), I don't remember. And the second time the TX4 =
wait
was caused when a session was trying to insert a key value (part of an
unique index)
in a table after another session had already inserted the same value but =
had
not yet commited. The second session waited in a TX 4 enqueue wait
until the first one commited/rollback its transaction.
HTH.
Regards
Diego.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Adams, Matthew (GE Consumer & Industrial)" <MATT.ADAMS@xxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:11 AM
Subject: TX locks
> I'm having a WHOLE lot of fun trying to track down
> the source of some ORA-2049 (timeout: distributed
> transaction waiting for lock) in a purchased app=3D20
> called Matrix. I have a number of questions I'm hoping=3D20
> someone can answer.
>
> Now, according to Metalink, this occurs when a session is=3D20
> waiting on a TX enqueue that another session is holding AND
> the waiting session is performing a distributed operation
> via a DB link.
>
> Also, according to Metalink (in a different document), TX
> enqueues are taken on particular slots in particular rollback
> segments.
>
>
> If a new connection does, as it's first statment, a read across
> a DB link, is a TX enqueue aquired immediately on a local =
rollback=3D20
> segment (as I think it is?)
>
> Why would two transactions need the same TX enqueue? Is it because
> they are attempting to update the same row locally (which I have =
been=3D20
> unable to prove or disprove yet)? Is it because they are=3D20
> both going after the same rows remotely? Is it a lack of available =
=3D
> slots
> in the rollback segments (ie, not enough rollback segments)?
>
> None of these scenerios seem very likely in this case, but I'm=3D20
> grasping at straws here.
>
>
> ----
> Matt Adams - GE Appliances - matt.adams@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Just once, I wish we would encounter an
> alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets.=3D20
> - The Brigadier
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
