Re: Automatic deadlock detection -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Automatic deadlock detection
From: CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:45:17 -0800
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 1/12/11 11:39 AM, Charles Wilt wrote:

Interestingly...

With both tables set WAITRCD=*NOMAX, one of my sessions gets the SQL
913 error...the other continues to wait..

So the system does seem to detect the deadlock, but doesn't throw
the expected error...nor does it automatically rollback a
transaction.

Of course DB2 LUW <> DB2 for i. Does the tested VRM-level of IBM i even have a message SQL0911 available to issue?

Regards, Chuck

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.