C
chrisjr
Guest
Hi there, Long time reader, first time poster here. I've found what I think is a bug, but was hoping to get some input from the community. What I'm seeing is a case where an EXCLUSIVE-LOCK is not being downgraded to a SHARE-LOCK, at the end of a transaction. The following is the code I'm experimenting with: for first mytable exclusive-lock: message "0 " transaction view-as alert-box. end. message "1 " available mytable transaction view-as alert-box. I'm using the message statements as pauses, so I can use promon to examine lock states. Including "available mytable" is necessary because it extends the scope of the mytable buffer; without it the EXCLUSIVE-LOCK is released, as expected, at the end of the FOR block. The interesting bit is that the lock is downgraded properly if I'm connected to the database via shared memory. If I'm connected client/server, then I still see an EXCLUSIVE-LOCK when my "message 1" displays. If I enclose the FOR block in a DO TRANSACTION block, the downgrade also behaves as expected (in all cases). Edit: This has been re-produced on 10.2B and 11.6.3 Any insights? Thanks, Chris
Continue reading...
Continue reading...