Search results

I have to brush up my knowledge of transaction scope. In this specific process there was no question dead locks, because these 2 table will be used during the week only for inquiry (read only). They need to be recreated every week end because the freight (fuel surcharge) changes. I ended up...

Thanks for the valuable advise of never using RELEASE. This is a process that runs once a week and re-creates the freight costs for a freight rates inquire screens. It provides freight from 10 origins to thousands of destination for different modes and products. All this ends into 1.2 million...

Thanks Tom, I do get the warning message. I wonder if releasing the record after the subtransaction block would help? TIA

Sorry! The original posting without the transaction is the one that I had problems with. The second is what I'm planning to try. I wonder if that will help. When I comply I get warning messages of TRANSACTION within TRANSACTION. Unfortunately the building of the temp tabel takes over 10 hours...

Thanks!

Hi, I'm not very good in Transaction controlling. I have a temp-table with 1.2 millions records that I need to add to a database. I have a -L parameter set quite high 150,000. This is in progress 10.1 in unix box. This is the piece of code: FOR EACH TT-ob_rate WHERE TT-ob_rate.fri = YES...

Thanks for your input. It has been a great help for me to decide how to proceed. I'm now in the process of creating and customizing binary dump scripts for test on a QA database. For large files, based on may knowledge of the software and undelying database, I intent to use dumpspecified. It...

We are moving from 32-bit Openedge 10.1A running on 32-bit HP-UX 11.11, to 32-bit Openedge 10.2B running on 32-bit Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0. We are currently running our database spread across several disks using MirrorDisk UX, and will be moving to a RAID 5 configuration in our new...

Tom, That is what I suspected. So, I run promon as jamaly to disconnect the locking session (by jamaly) but that did not terminate the session. It only works when dbadmin disconnects dbadmin. There must be something at OS level. I'll ask our Unix guru to look into it. Thanks for your help.

Tom, Waiting for lock is not the problem. I mentioned in my original post to explain why I did want to disconnect a user (It is due to a wait for lock by batch process that I need to disconnect a user). So in my examples you will not see a session waiting for lock, that has nothing to do with...

1) It works only if the locking user is dbadmin. 2) No special pervilages to dbadmin except that is the owner of the database. 3) Our DBA has no clue. I took a snap shot of the database log file which may help identify the reason. You are right the issue has now morphed. Originally when I posted...

No. I did not forget the not. When the user locking is dbadmin, then when the user is disconnected the lock is released. But if the user locking is NOT dbadmin, disconnecting the user does not release the lock. I'll soon get a snapshot from the db log file and post as soon as I can. TIA

What I mean: I signed on the UNIX box as 'dbadmin', and connected to the DB as 'dbadmin' and run the following code from pregress editor: find first gen_loc where gen_loc.entity = "" and gen_loc.loc = "01" no-lock no-error. if available gen_loc then do transaction: find current gen_loc...

Thanks casorohi. The following may explain why Progress Corporation could not replicate the scenario: If the locking process is by userid 'dbadmin', then, when disconecting the user releases the lock.

Agree 100%.

Tom, thanks for your input. My problem is not with the test code, that is just to illustrate the situation (only one side of it). My problem is when a user startes an update to a shipment record and then leaves the desk (could be for lunch or even for the night). These are remote user that...

Thanks LarryD, That would means re-writing the software. Which is not an option for me. The piece of code that I used was just to ilustrate my predicament. What I'm looking for is a method of desconecting an user and terminating a lock (and by rolling back transactions), so that another process...

I replaced by this code with same result. define buffer bgen_loc for gen_loc. find first gen_loc where gen_loc.entity = "" and gen_loc.loc = "01" no-lock no-error. if available gen_loc then do for bgen_loc transaction: find bgen_loc where recid(bgen_loc) = recid(gen_loc)...

Thanks Tom, What you say is helpful. My problem may be transaction scopping. This is the piece of code that I tried to use for testing. Do you see anything that can help me? This is the offending session: File Edit Search Buffer Compile Tools Help...