[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference orarep::nomahs::dec_data_distributor

Title:The Replication Option for Rdb
Notice:Product renamed to Replication Option for Rdb
Moderator:BROKE::PROTEAU
Created:Wed Mar 02 1994
Last Modified:Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:287
Total number of notes:1231

206.0. "deadlock on snapshot cursor 0" by ORAREP::VAXRIO::CSANTOS () Mon Apr 15 1996 15:57

    
    	
    	Hi,
    
    
    	We have a customer running DDAL 6.0 and RDb 6.1-1...  After
    upgrading his RDB to this version, he started getting the error 
    
       "deadlock on snapshot cursor 0"
    
    whne executing a transfer.  He does have snapshot deferred in this
    database, but the strange thing is that it happens even if there
    is noone attached to the database.
    
    	Is there any know problems???  Does anyone have any idea??
    
    	
    				Thanks 
    
    					Claudia
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
206.1Here's the reasonBROKE::PROTEAUJean-Claude ProteauMon Apr 15 1996 16:307
    
    Is this happening on the source database and is this a replication
    update transfer?  If so, snapshots deferred is the problem.  Data Dis-
    tributor attaches to the source database twice so that it can start two
    concurrent transactions.  I won't go into the details of why it does
    so.  Snapshots deferred is causing Data Distributor's first transaction
    to deadlock with its second transaction.
206.2Guess nothing to do with the upgrade then...ORAREP::VAXRIO::CSANTOSMon Apr 15 1996 16:5613
    
    
    	Jean,
    
    	Thanks for the quick reply... Yes, it is replication update
    transfer... And that explains the "problem".  Just one more question,
    is this always been this way, or there were any changes for RDb 6.1 or
    ddal 6.0??
    
    
    				Thanks once more
    
    						Claudia
206.3The change was made maybe 4-5 years agoBROKE::PROTEAUJean-Claude ProteauMon Apr 15 1996 17:544
    
    This was not this way in VDD 1.0.  There was a change probably 4-5
    years ago, but I don't recall the exact version of VDD/DDD in which the
    change was made.