--- Helen Borrie <helebor@...> wrote:

>
> At this point, transaction #2 is active and is interested in the completed
> (committed or rolled-back) transaction #1.

why is it still active while it has been (hard-)committed?

>
> Transaction #2 is still active, so at least *it* still regards #1 as
> interesting, so OIT doesn't move. Until Transaction #2 is completed, it
> remains as the OAT. Now, you have 10 more transactions started. We cannot
> tell whether any of them is likely to be interested in #2, or in one another.
>
>
> >this leads me to a question: is this behaviour expected?
>
> Yes.
>
> These figures don't tell anything except that you started 10 transactions
> while you had the same active read-write transaction hanging about...Oldest
> Snapshot can give you an indication of whether GC has actually occurred -
> although, even if GC has occurred, the Oldest Snapshot won't move forward if
> Oldest Active hasn't changed.

i don't understand, since the program starts only 1 transaction and commits
before disconnecting. the program is executed 10 times.

interesting thing happens if you start another transaction besides the first
one which is actually used. this second transaction does nothing, but the
effect is substantial: the OIT is no longer stuck.

rgds,
Edwin.





________________________________________________________
Kunjungi halaman depan Yahoo! Indonesia yang baru!
http://id.yahoo.com/