no insult was intended,

I have learned everything I know about Firebird from this newsgroup,
and the excellent Firebird book.

I mentioned my situation because my symptoms also included:

> >After that all accesses to the database fail, because the database
> file 'is locked by another process'.

This seemed to be caused by the bugcheck and no other extraneous source.

thanks,

stan

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie <helebor@...> wrote:
>
> At 07:27 AM 20/10/2006, Stan wrote:
> >off topic:
> >------------
> >I like it how on this newsgroup the first assumption is always user
> >error :) I mean no disrespect to the very experienced and helpful
> >proffesionals that take their time to patrol this group.
>
> And I like it (NOT) how some people think that it's wrong to approach
> a troubleshoot by eliminating identifiable extraneous causes first.
>
> You wrote:
> >-------------
> >
> >on topic:
> >--------------
> >I have had a similar issue.
> >
> >I filed a reproducible test-case into the Firebird tracker:
> >http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-5
> >
> >Here is how I got around my issue:
> >
> >1. Make sure that you are not updating the same record more than once
> >in a single transaction.
> >
> >2. Make sure that you dont have triggers and/or stored procedures
> >that call one another, creating a "deep" stack of procedure calls.
> >These "deep" call-stacks mixed with a lot of concurrent load, is
> >how my test-case duplicates this issue.
> >
> >
> >let us know if these suggestions fixed your problem.
>
> I hope that attending to these design details, if they are part of
> the picture, will help to solve the problem. However, to get back ON
> topic, your report does not include this in its list of symptoms
> (requoting from Gerrit's original posting):
>
> >After that all accesses to the database fail, because the database
> file 'is locked by another process'.
>
> This says that the engine can't accept requests because another
> process is preventing it from accessing the database file. This *is*
> an extraneous condition, that is giving rise to the internal
> inconsistency. It's also NOT NECESSARILY a "user error", although it
> does rather look like an environmental one at this point...
>
> ./heLen
>