Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5

    Unanswered: 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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,516
    Provided Answers: 1

    Re: LOCKING Problem BATCH vs. Client Access

    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.
    ---
    "It does not work" is not a valid problem statement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •