<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Spin-off: RdB problem in Operating System - OpenVMS</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141220#M14031</link>
    <description>Oops - misfit in perception on my side: It's the requestor's intent that counts, not what the rest of the world could do. Makes sense with EX...&lt;BR /&gt;If I undertsood the Black Book correctly, it would mean a PW lock will indeed wait - because incomptability with PR, and not because of EX. But since EX is queued before, it will be granted first. Same result, though.  And yes: if another PR comes along, and another, and another, the process requesting EX will have a problem.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;WG</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:47:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Willem Grooters</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-02-25T14:47:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Spin-off: RdB problem</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141218#M14029</link>
      <description>This thread &lt;A href="http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1200857" target="_blank"&gt;http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1200857&lt;/A&gt; offers another functional problem. I didn't want to hijack the thread since that is another matter.&lt;BR /&gt;----- &lt;BR /&gt;Waiting: 202054F6 _TNA282:....... 5E00A732 00010001 EX &lt;BR /&gt;Blocker: 202054F5 _TNA281:....... 550021A6 00010001 PR &lt;BR /&gt;-----&lt;BR /&gt;My assumption is that if process PID 202054F6 tries to delete a record that has been fetched before by process PID 202054F5.&lt;BR /&gt;This seems rather obvious to me.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;But what would happen if a third process comes along and would access the same record? It would depend on the transaction setting, propably, but this would be my estimate:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Read only, reserving this table for shared read: SUCCESS&lt;BR /&gt;Read only, reserving this table for shared write: SUCCESS&lt;BR /&gt;Read write, reserving this table for shared read: SUCCESS&lt;BR /&gt;Read write, reserving this table for shared write: WAIT (or FAIL)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;and as long as there is a process accessing the record, theprocess trying to delete the record will wait until all processes would commit or rollback their transactions.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It the assumption correct, of what have I misunderstood?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:06:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141218#M14029</guid>
      <dc:creator>Willem Grooters</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-02-06T14:06:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Spin-off: RdB problem</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141219#M14030</link>
      <description>A read only can't reserve a table for shared write - write access is not compatible with read only -&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Any other read write transaction will wait because on the record already exists a waiting transaction.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It the 3rd transaction was allowed to read the record (setting a PR lock which is compatible with the current granted lock PR) this can lead to a famine where a transaction will never succeeded to update a record. &lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:12:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141219#M14030</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jean-François Piéronne</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-02-06T16:12:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Spin-off: RdB problem</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141220#M14031</link>
      <description>Oops - misfit in perception on my side: It's the requestor's intent that counts, not what the rest of the world could do. Makes sense with EX...&lt;BR /&gt;If I undertsood the Black Book correctly, it would mean a PW lock will indeed wait - because incomptability with PR, and not because of EX. But since EX is queued before, it will be granted first. Same result, though.  And yes: if another PR comes along, and another, and another, the process requesting EX will have a problem.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;WG</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:47:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-openvms/spin-off-rdb-problem/m-p/4141220#M14031</guid>
      <dc:creator>Willem Grooters</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-02-25T14:47:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

