Hi Sarav, Thankyou for the reply. I am still debating with myself if this is indeed a problem for myApp. I presume by adding the nowait, village or rather Torque would throw then a Torque exception when no lock can be made on a row, which could be caught in myApp?
I think for the moment though I will wait and see how it works in the "real-world", and see if there are any complaints about "waiting". I may get back to you on this, if this is o.k? I have another slightly different question about the writing of blobs to oracle using the patched village.jar :-) Do you know of any issues about placing the writing of blobs inside of a transaction. We have the conn object inside the save method(see below), does this seem o.k ??? conn = torque.getconnection(); conn.setAutoCommit(false); ..blah myDBObj.setBLOBcolumn(bytes); myDbObj.save(conn); myOtherDBObj.setOtherRubbish(); myOtherDBObj.save(conn); myOtherDBObj1.setOtherRubbish(); myOtherDBObj1.save(conn); conn.commit(); I would be VERY grateful again for you insight. kind regards, Ben -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Saravana Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 23:31 An: Apache Torque Users List Betreff: Re: AW: Village for Oracle patch. Hi Tino, I personally consider these two scenarios to be different, because if I remember right, in your case the locking was done by some other code outside your control and it was not a part of Torque. Your code ended up waiting on the locked record. In this case, the locking code and the waiting code are a part of Torque, or rather village. Ben, My suggestion for a temporary fix would be, getting the village source from me and adding a NO WAIT at the end of all the LOB related SQL queries. It shouldn't be difficult (you can find the code of interest under a method like LOBQueryString or something). The proper way to take care of this would be to look at the options passed to Village be Torque and then add NO WAIT if Torque doesn't want locking. But I'm not sure if Torque has such a property and if it does, I'm not sure if it passes it to Village Thanks, Sarav On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 06:10, Sperlich, Tino wrote: > Hi, > > I have faced a similar problem lately > and I think that issue is a general torque one > rather than only blob-related. > With the help of > Arne Siegel I've solved it for my part. > See Arne's comments here: > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03288.html> > > HTH, regards, > > Tino > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Ben Bookey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2004 09:55 > An: Apache Torque Users List > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: AW: Village for Oracle patch. > > > > > Hi Saravana, > > > > >>Is this hanging noticed only in tables with LOBs or does it hang on any > > >>table where locking is performed? > > > > This is a very good question :-) I think that this table with the LOB is > the > > only one where any locking is taking place in my application. My > > understanding is that Oracle locking is only done when a specific "select > * > > where * for update" command is used (this command is also system.out'd, > > presumably from your patch). If this is the case, then its the only table > > where I have noticed this problem, as the remainder of the app is doing > > standard Torque Deletes, Updates and Inserts using Torque (varchar and > > numbers) and I believe from the Torque logs that no such commands are > done. > > ==So I assume you access your tables using only Torque and don't use any > ==custom SQL statements to access the database. > Correct. > > > One futher point I would like to add, is that this problem is not likely > to > > happen alot in my app. I have locked the row > > using SQLplus, and not another instance of myApp. > > ==What do you mean by "locked the row using SQLplus"? Do you mean Stored > ==procedures? Why do you lock the row in the first place? I'm confused. > ==Explain more about the scenario please. What is myApp (I can see its > ==something you wrote ;-) ) Is your application a webapp or a standalone > ==app? > > MyApp is a tomcat, servlet database app with jsp. Upto max 20 users > accessing the same > oracle instance and tablespace using this app. After sleeping on it:-) the > only place > where locking must take place is with the BLOB. This is due to the writing > of the filesize normally > associated with blobs (we limit this to 30k but this can be increased if the > customer so wishes). > > In this environment users *could* get conflicts, when attempting a blob > update simultanesously on > the same row. I reproduce a locking scenario by using the > %ORACLE_HOME%\ora92\bin\SQLplus.exe, and selecting for update a particular > row containing a LOB for update. I then attempt a blob update with myAPP and > it hangs until > I COMMIT on SQLplus.exe. This is in affect reproducing a slow update of the > blob to the database. > > We are a group of three developers. > > ==I think there is a way to ask Oracle to not wait (add NO WAIT at the > ==end) but I'm not sure I want to make it the default option of Village. I > ==don't know if Torque passes on "lock requirements" to Village. If it > ==does and I can figure out how to get that property within village, I can > ==add the feature to not wait on locks. > > Thats what I was thinking. Adding NO WAIT, and returning an Exception, would > remove this problem( issue would be better perhaps:-)) completely. I guess > I have not really thought about the "real chances" of user-conflicts > occuring in myAPP. I suppose the chances are minimal, and because the > filesize is also minimal a second user shouldnt have to wait so long until > lock is released. More conflicts would occur when the filesizes are bigger. > > Await your comment :-) > > Ben > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
