If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 
Go Back  dBforums > Database Server Software > DB2 > LOCKING Problem BATCH vs. Client Access

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-03, 13:21
magro magro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5
LOCKING Problem BATCH vs. Client Access

Hi!

I'm fairly new to this, so please allow for some stupidity.

I have an application with a DB2 database under OS390 with monthly batch operations with Cobol programms using LOCK TABLE IN EXCLUSIVE mode.

At the same time users are accessing the database with a WINNT client software via DB2 Connect - but definitely with SELECTs only (no INSERTs, UPDATEs or DELETEs).

We cannot avoid running the batch part during daytime due to organizational reasons and we are sometimes experiencing -911s with the batch operations.

Would it help the situation if the SELECTs from the client software were generated with an appending "FOR FETCH ONLY WITH UR" ? Can the COBOL programm achieve its lock while the client access would be done like that instead of SELECTing without the "UR" part like it is done today?

Thanks a lot - I'd appreciate your help!

M.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-03, 15:39
n_i n_i is offline
:-)
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,449
Re: LOCKING Problem BATCH vs. Client Access

Quote:
Originally posted by magro
I have an application with a DB2 database under OS390 with monthly batch operations with Cobol programms using LOCK TABLE IN EXCLUSIVE mode.

At the same time users are accessing the database with a WINNT client software via DB2 Connect - but definitely with SELECTs only (no INSERTs, UPDATEs or DELETEs).

We cannot avoid running the batch part during daytime due to organizational reasons and we are sometimes experiencing -911s with the batch operations.

Would it help the situation if the SELECTs from the client software were generated with an appending "FOR FETCH ONLY WITH UR" ? Can the COBOL programm achieve its lock while the client access would be done like that instead of SELECTing without the "UR" part like it is done today?
SELECTs run with UR isolation level should not affect the batch application with an exclusive lock on the table; the opposite I think is also true. In short, your solution should work.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On