[Fwd: Re: Deadlock inserting into same rowid (different block)]
- From: D'Hooge Freek <Freek.DHooge@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:02:44 +0100
resending because mail on freelists showed only some gibberish
But if your values for the primary key constraint on the child table are
generated by a sequence, how would you end up with sessions trying to
insert duplicate values?
--
Freek D'Hooge
Uptime
Oracle Database Administrator
email: freek.dhooge@xxxxxxxxx
tel +32(03) 451 23 82
http://www.uptime.be
disclaimer: www.uptime.be/disclaimer.html
On do, 2013-03-21 at 16:19 +0100, Patterson, Joel wrote:
> This was enough to dig into the application further. We know that last
> night's process had to be one of a few - since it is acceptance and no 'user'
> was logged in and working.
> We hypothesize that there are two application layer 'nodes' executing inserts
> into the child table - at the same time. The Cache on the sequence used for
> the primary key is set to 500 - clue.
>
> However, as to the suspect reporting of the deadlock graph - it appears that
> Jonathan was spot on, (I have a little English in me).
>
> The column used by the child table sequence is the primary key for the child
> table, and is not related to the FK index mentioned in the Deadlock graph,
> object 199909, which references the parent table on a totally different
> column.
>
> So we theorize that the primary key overlap is actually on the child table -
> and had nothing to do with the FK index to the parent table as reported in
> the deadlock graph; 'mystery'.
>
> Still looking into getting the values for the bind variable in the trace
> file. I haven't done an insert in so long I have opened an SR - this may
> confirm the theory.
>
> Joel Patterson
> Database Administrator
> 904 928-2790
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
