Subject Re: [firebird-support] Deadlock when 2 session update the same 01 row
Author W O
Ann, I like very much the way you explain every thing. Now, I want to
collect all your e-mails to this group.



On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Ann Harrison <aharrison@...>wrote:

> **
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Andr´┐Ż Knappstein <
> Knappstein@...> wrote:
> > FWIW there seems to be a related question in the .net list.
> > Jiri confirmed that the default is "NoWait". This makes my
> > misunderstanding of the term "deadlock" complete, because in NoWait I
> > usually get an exception right off, which is all but a deadlock in the
> > way I used to understand it.
> >
> There's a some history and a bit of theory here.
> The history is that in the early 1980's DEC had two groups writing
> relational databases. One group used traditional record-lock based
> concurrency control and one used MVCC. Guess which one Jim Starkey led,
> and for extra points, how there happened to be two projects. At the time
> DEC was pushing VAX clusters, which were groups of separate machines that
> shared storage through a thing called the HSC. Part of the VAX Cluster
> architecture was a distributed lock manager. Very clever bit of software,
> which made locking possible in shared nothing, but locks were both slow and
> available in limited quantities. Anyway, that's why a non-lock based
> solution was attractive.
> Having competing projects has some benefits - easy to do performance
> testing side by side, and develops some real identification with the
> project. Releasing two relational databases and making customers choose
> between them was less attractive, so a rule emerged. The interfaces had to
> be identical. Not just the API, but the system tables, and the error codes
> - everything had to be consistent, so you could take an application running
> against one database, change the logical name that lead to the database
> shared library and magically you'd be running the other database. And, of
> course, a common backup format so you back up one and restore as the other.
> Error codes were a real trial. Some errors only occur with record-locking
> system (e.g. out of locks) and some only with MVCC - update conflict. The
> two project leaders and I met with a mediator, David Hartzband - he has a
> doctorate in philosophy from Heidelberg (the one in Germany), is a database
> expert, and worked as a bouncer at the Buckets of Blood bar outside the
> gates of a steel mill in either Pittsburg PA or Youngstown Ohio. I forget
> which. A man who could be very convincing. Errors were divided into
> groups by the way a program could deal with them. Codes common to both
> system and the top code for a group of similar codes became primary error
> codes. Codes that were specific to a database were secondary codes.
> That's how Update Conflict got to be a secondary code under Deadlock.
> The theory is that if you encounter an update conflict, you're going to see
> that same conflict if you retry your transaction before the other
> transaction commits. That's pretty much live-lock: try, fail, try again,
> fail again, use all the system resources and don't get anywhere. That's
> why the original default was WAIT. If you wait, then there's a chance your
> next attempt will succeed. Yes, it's a problem if the other guy is running
> long update transactions (why would he do that?) and you've got a user
> waiting for an answer. Lots of interfaces use NO_WAIT as the default.
> Good luck,
> Ann
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]