When shared locks are relesed in read committed.

hi,
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc546518.aspx
following lines are form above link
"shared locks are acquired for read operations, but they are released as soon as they have been granted"
Q1) Are they released after the stmt is executed " select * from a" or they are realease after the row is read and it continues with second row.
Q2) As far as acquiring of shared lock is concerned i think they are acquired row by row , and mean  while other transaction can update rows which are not having shared lock till now , like last rows?
yours sincerley

That means.
if a stmt select three rows.
Q1)Then will it get shared lock for first row, reads it, release the lock, then take shared lock on second row and read it then release it again after reading the second row , then it will get thired row lock ....?
Q2) As far as acquiring of shared lock is concerned i think they are acquired row by row , and mean  while
other transaction can update rows which are not having shared lock till now , like last rows?
Q1) Yes, in read committed mode when your query does not have any hints to change the behavior, if a query is only reading data from a table (like a SELECT statement), then the lock on each row is taken just before the row is read, the row is read, the lock
is freed and it goes on to the next row and does the same process on that row (lock, read, free).
Q2) Yes, the locks are acquired on a row basis.  Since they are then freed, your query will not stop other connections from updating rows in the table(s) you are reading except for the vary short period of time the lock is held on each row.  So
your query could read lock row 1, read row 1, free the lock on row1, get a lock on row 2 and be in the process of reading row 2 when some other connection updates row 1.  That connection would be allowed to update row 1.
Tom

Similar Messages

  • Blank page when pdf files are opened in reader 9

    I have an issue with reader 9 and opening pdf files in internet explorer 7. A large number of computers on my network loose the ability to open pdf files in internet explorer 7.
    When this event happens and after uninstalling Adobe reader 9, and doing a reinstall I am able to view these files normally. However the problems returns within a day.
    I am looking for clues as to what could be breaking the ability to view pdf file in internet explorer 7.

    Hi,
    We can use jQuery plugin to open the PDf file in browser.
    The following link for your reference:
    http://www.jqueryrain.com/2012/09/best-jquery-pdf-viewer-plugin-examples/
    Best Regards
    TechNet Community Support
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help, and unmark the answers if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact
    [email protected]

  • Mail showing one unread message when all messages are marked as read

    Wondering if anyone else was having any weird issues with their iCloud and unread count in the Mail app on their mac running lion? I can't seem to get rid of a phantom unread message. My iCloud account is fairly new so I don't have that many messages to go through so I know there is not an unread message any where. Any help would be appreciated
    Cheers,
    Rabah

    I have had the same issue with my Microsoft exchange email after upgrading to Lion.  It's a bit annoying.  My iPad, Android Phone, and viewing it using a browser all show 0 unread, but Mail shows 3 unread.  I have tried deleting the account, rebuilding, and pawing through settings looking for something I missed. Nothing.  I actually had the same problem with my MobileMe email with Snow Leopard but I eventually permanently removed the account as other problems arose and just used it in my browser.
    Sorry I couldn't help but I hope it's resolved.
    John

  • How to create shared lock

    Hi,
    Can any please tell me how create a shared lock in steps.
    Thanks in advance
    Priya

    Hi Swati,
    This may not be possible, because you have created shared lock for the four different views but the table is one.
    So when one is editing then definitely if the other try to access the same entries then the object will be locked.
    First understand how and which lock can do which type of action.
    For your assistance read this and try to find the answer.
    Exclusive lock
    The locked data can be read or processed by one user only. A request for another exclusive lock or for a shared lock is rejected.
    Shared lock
    Several users can read the same data at the same time, but as soon as a user edits the data, a second user can no longer access this data. Requests for further shared locks are accepted, even if they are issued by different users, but exclusive locks are rejected.
    Exclusive but not cumulative lock
    Exclusive locks can be requested by the same transaction more than once and handled successively, but an exclusive but not cumulative lock can only be requested once by a given transaction. All other lock requests are rejected.
    Cheers!!
    VEnk@

  • "no enough space to create shared lock" Error Occured

    Hi, Everyone
    After creating a new Sales Order in the CRM System, there was a Error "no enough space to create shared lock".
    who have met this issue before?Please tell me, thanks a lot.
    Best Regards,
    Bonnie Spear

    Hi Bonnie,
       Shared Lock means Several users (transactions) can access locked data at the same time in display mode.
    Requests from further shared locks are accepted, even if they are from different users.
    But if you are creating a new sale order this should not occur. May be you should check your customizing settings.There may be some problem in that.
    Hope this helps.
    best regards
    Sourabh

  • How to avoid shared locks when validating foreign keys?

    I have a table with a FK and I want to update a row in that table without being blocked by another transaction which is updating the parent row at the same time. Here is an example:
    CREATE TABLE dbo.ParentTable
    PARENT_ID int NOT NULL,
    VALUE varchar(128) NULL,
    CONSTRAINT PK_ParentTable PRIMARY KEY (PARENT_ID)
    GO
    CREATE TABLE dbo.ChildTable
    CHILD_ID int NOT NULL,
    PARENT_ID INT NULL,
    VALUE varchar(128) NULL,
    CONSTRAINT PK_ChildTable PRIMARY KEY (CHILD_ID),
    CONSTRAINT FK_ChildTable__ParentTable FOREIGN KEY (PARENT_ID)
    REFERENCES dbo.ParentTable (PARENT_ID)
    GO
    INSERT INTO ParentTable(PARENT_ID, VALUE)
    VALUES (1, 'Some value');
    INSERT INTO ChildTable(CHILD_ID, PARENT_ID, VALUE)
    VALUES (1, 1, 'Some value');
    GO
    Now I have 2 transactions running at the same time:
    The first transaction:
    SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;BEGIN TRAN
    UPDATE ParentTable
    SET VALUE = 'Test'
    WHERE PARENT_ID = 1;
    The second transaction:
    SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;BEGIN TRAN
    UPDATE ChildTable
    SET VALUE = 'Test',
    PARENT_ID = 1
    WHERE CHILD_ID = 1;
    If 'UPDATE ParentTable' statement runs a bit earlier, then 'UPDATE ChildTable' statement is blocked untill the first transaction is committed or rollbacked. It happens because SQL Server acquires shared locks when validating foreign keys, even
    if the transaction is using read uncommitted, read committed snapshot (read committed using row versioning) or snapshot isolation level. I cannot see why change in the ParentTable.VALUE should prevent me from updating ChildTable. Please note that ParentTable.PARENT_ID
    is not changed by the first transaction, which means that from FK's point of view whatevere is set to the ParentTable.VALUE is never a problem for referential integrity. So, such blocking behavior seems to me not logical. Furthermore, it contradicts to the
    MSDN:
    Transactions running at the READ UNCOMMITTED level do not issue shared locks to prevent other transactions from modifying data read by the current transaction. READ UNCOMMITTED transactions are also not blocked by exclusive locks that would prevent the
    current transaction from reading rows that have been modified but not committed by other transactions. 
    Does anybody know how to workaround the issue? In other words, are there any tricks to avoid shared locks when validating foreign keys? (Disabling FK is not an option.) Thank you.
    Alexey

    If you change the primary key of the parent table to be nonclustered, there is no blocking.
    Indeed, when I update ParentTable.VALUE, then:
    in case of PK_ParentTable is clustered, a particular row in the clustered index is locked (request_mode:X, resource_type: KEY)
    in case of PK_ParentTable is non-clustered, a particular physical row in the heap is locked (request_mode:X, resource_type: RID).
    and when I update ChildTable.PARENT_ID, then:
    in case of PK_ParentTable is clustered, this index is used to verify referential integrity:
    in case of PK_ParentTable is non-clustered, again this index is used to verify referential integrity, but this time it is not locked:
    It is important to note that in both cases SQL Server acquires shared locks when validating foreign keys. The principal difference is that in case of clustered PK_ParentTable the request is blocked, while for non-clustered index it is granted.
    Thank you, Erland for the idea and explanations.
    The only thing that upsets me is that this solution cannot be applied, because I don't want to convert PK_ParentTable from clustered to non-clustered just to avoid blocking issues. It is a pity that SQL Server is not smart enough to realize that:
    ParentTable.PARENT_ID is not changed and, as a result, should not be locked
    ChildTable.PARENT_ID is not actually changed either (old value in my example is 1 and the new value is also 1) and, as a result, there is no need at all for validating the foreign key.
    In fact, the problem I described is just a tip of the iceberg. The real challenge is that I have deadlocks because of the FK validation. In reality, the first transaction has an additional statement which updates ChildTable:
    SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;
    BEGIN TRAN
    UPDATE ParentTable
    SET VALUE = 'Test'
    WHERE PARENT_ID = 1;
    UPDATE ChildTable
    SET VALUE = 'Test'
    WHERE PARENT_ID = 1;
    The result is famous message:
    Msg 1205, Level 13, State 51, Line xx
    Transaction (Process ID xx) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.
    I know that if I change the order of the two statements, it will solve the deadlock issue. But let's imagine I cannot do it. What are the other options?
    Alexey

  • Not allowed to move (only copy) files within Shared Folder (yes, permissions are set to Read/Write)

    I have moved my media (Music, Movies, Pictures) to the Users/Shared folder.  As I'm doing some cleanup in these folders, I am trying to move several folders/files at once, all within the same Shared folder.  I have confirmed that the permissions settings under "Get Info" are set to "Read/Write" and I have verified and repaired permissions with Disk Utility.  However, every move I try to do is a copy.  I have tried the Command-Drag method, but I'm still left with the green plus sign indicating a copy.
    On smaller files/folders, this wouldn't matter so much as I would copy, then just delete the original.  But I'm dealing with many, many gigs of music and my HD doesn't have space for holding copies, even if the originals will be deleted.
    Very frustrating to have to spend so much time to figure out what would seem to be a very basic file management feature.
    I've searched and read and searched some more, but I'm stuck.  Thanks to any who can help. 

    Do have file sharing and remote login checked
    When on Betty's computer, Sign into Bob's computer with Bob's username & Bob's Password, instead of Betty's.
    BINGO!!!!  Problem solved.  Many thanks!!!

  • What locks are required on a table when Oracle is processing an UPDATE

    What locks are required on a table when Oracle is processing an
    UPDATE statement?

    Welcome to the forum!
    Whenever you post provide your 4 digit Oracle version.
    >
    What locks are required on a table when Oracle is processing an
    UPDATE statement?
    >
    Here is a relevant quote from the 'Lock Modes' section of the doc that Ed Stevens provided
    >
    Assume that a transaction uses a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE statement to select a single table row. The transaction acquires an exclusive row lock and a row share table lock. The row lock allows other sessions to modify any rows other than the locked row, while the table lock prevents sessions from altering the structure of the table. Thus, the database permits as many statements as possible to execute.
    >
    The above describes the locks when you, the user, tells Oracle to lock the row.

  • SP2013 Bug Report: Health Reports - You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels.

    There appears to be an error when trying to view Health Reports from Central Administration. A simple fix within a SharePoint Stored Procedure fixes the problem. I get the error message "You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or
    REPEATABLE READ isolation levels." when just trying to click "View Health Reports" --> Go in CA.
    I have found the same problem in some blog posts which leads me to believe this is a bug:
    Problems Viewing Health Reports in SharePoint 2013
    From the blog post "I managed to work around it by altering the
    proc_GetSlowestPages stored procedure and commenting out the
    WITH (READPAST) line. "
    This also worked for me. It would be great if a fix could be released for this problem as it seems to cause other problems as well (site analytics freezes).

    Hi Dennis
    Hope you had found the hotfix and installed it.
    For the benefit of others who visit this thread SharePoint Server 2013 Client Components SDK hotfix package addresses this issue.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2849962
    Regards
    Sriram.V

  • Mutex shared lock while reading/writing files

    Hi,
    My application is a single threaded application. And I am trying to do the read/write file operation.  But there is a chance that other process may read/write the same file while i am using. So before reading or writing the file, i want to mutex shared
    lock.
    So can please some one tell me how to prevent this situation. Is there some sample code. I checked in net, how to use mutex shared lock, i got some example, but every where before using the mutex loxk, a thread needs to be created. Since my application is
    a single threaded, so i dont want to create a new thread.
    So please help me, how to prevent/stop other process to access the same file while my application is using.
    THanks a lot in advance.

    That's not something that a mutex can help with. Other processes won't know about your mutex and even if they know that's overkill. Normally you simply open that file without allowing read/write sharing - in the case of CreateFile that in general means that
    you pass 0 for the dwShareMode parameter.
    If you use the C runtime functions then you can use fopen_s instead of fopen as it automatically disallows sharing if you open the file for write (if you open for read when it allows shared read which is the normal thing to do).

  • Already unlocked mutex gets unlocked again when locks are exhausted

    The current (4.7.25) implementation of error handling in __lock_get_internal suffers from a deficiency described below (visible in DIAGNOSTIC mode only though).
    Consider the current error-exit cleanup code (lock.c, line 1019):
    err:     if (!LF_ISSET(DB_LOCK_UPGRADE | DB_LOCK_SWITCH))
              LOCK_INIT(*lock);
    done:     if (newl != NULL &&
         (t_ret = __lock_freelock(lt, newl, sh_locker,
         DB_LOCK_FREE | DB_LOCK_UNLINK)) != 0 && ret == 0)
              ret = t_ret;
         OBJECT_UNLOCK(lt, region, ndx);
         return (ret);
    The OBJECT_UNLOCK tries to unconditionally unlock the previously locked partition mutex. Unfortunately this mutex is not always locked.
    Initially, when trying to lock, a partition mutex is correctly locked (lock.c, line 585):
              /* Allocate a shared memory new object. */
              OBJECT_LOCK(lt, region, obj, lock->ndx);
              ndx = lock->ndx;
              if ((ret = __lock_getobj(lt, obj, lock->ndx, 1, &sh_obj)) != 0)
                   goto err;
    But, when a new lock is allocated, the following code is used (lock.c, line 758):
              part_id = LOCK_PART(region, ndx);
              /* Allocate a new lock. */
              if ((newl = SH_TAILQ_FIRST(
              &FREE_LOCKS(lt, part_id), __db_lock)) == NULL) {
                   if ((ret = __lock_alloclock(lt, part_id)) != 0)
                        goto err;
                   /* Dropped the mutex start over. */
                   goto again;
    This one calls __lock_alloclock that MAY (but does not always do, see the partition size check, lock.c, line 477) unlock the current partition mutex.
    So, when locks/partitions are exhausted in DIAGNOSTIC mode, the failure leads to an environment DB_RUNRECOVERY panic instead of a simple ENOSPC being returned. I cannot say if this does any harm in non-DIAGNOSTIC mode, but I think that unlocking the same mutex twice won't do any good.
    Thanks for your attention.

    Thank you for your reply.
    Yes, I considered myself that relocking mutex back is the easiest solution, but did not bother implementing it since the problem arises only when locks are exhausted which is a showstopper by itself.
    As for my case, I just increased locks and lock objects limit tenfold (its okay since I delete several thousands of records via one transactional cursor and this isn't used in a production application, more of a test), so even DIAGNOSTIC build works properly.
    Also, I think I have a small suggestion not related to the original topic. When upgrading to 4.7.25 from 4.5.20, I was very happy to discover that environments (region structures I think) are now properly distinguished between platforms (different binary layouts, probably a hash of some internal data or structure size check), so the x64 binary trying to open x86-created environment (or vice versa) doesn't just crash with an assert or an access violation (yes, I run BDB on Win32/Win64 and happy with it) -- it checks some sort of region structure hash and bails out with proper error message about incompatibility.
    Unfortunately, the DIAGNOSTIC vs non-DIAGNOSTIC builds still suffer from the aforementioned problem -- they crash/assert when opening incompatible environments (i.e. DIAGNOSTIC environment tries to open non-DIAGNOSTIC one or vice versa). I fully understand that different builds are not intended to be binary compatible, but adding something like you did for region structures to differentiate DIAGNOSTIC and non-DIAGNOSTIC environment formats would be a very good idea.
    Thank you for your time.
    Message was edited by:
    onyXMaster

  • My shared files are all set as read only. How do I sort this out?

    I am trying to set up our iMac and MacBook so that they share files.
    In System Preferences/Sharing I have set the File sharing to ON, I have selected which folders are to be shared and I have set it so that everyone can read and write the files.
    In the iMac files when you check various properties NONE are set as read only, however, when the files are access from the MacBook they are all READ ONLY.
    What am I doing wrong and how do I sort this out so that I can access files from either computer and amend and save them without having to change file names?
    Please help!!
    Karl

    I have had similar problems and have given up trying to use the "everyone" user setting.  Instead, to give shared access to a folder I add specific users and then set their access level.  To add users to a folders sharing profile click on the [+] button at the bottom of the Users column.

  • You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels

    Hi, I have a piece of code that works fine in SSMS as T-SQL. When I put the T-Sql inside a SP, I get the error :
    You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels
    The script starts is as follows (only select)
    SET NOCOUNT ON
    Set Transaction Isolation Level Read Committed
    Set Deadlock_Priority Low
    Select......
    From MyTable WITH (NOLOCK)
    GROUP BY .....
    Order BY ....
    works fine as I said in SSMS as T-SQL but the SP generates the following
    Msg 650, Level 16, State 1, Procedure usp_TotalMessages, Line 15
    You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels.
    By the way, when it says line 15, from where we should start counting, is it from The USE DB statement which includes comments as well as Set ANSI....or should we start counting from the Alter PRocedure statement
    Thanks in advance

    Set Transaction Isolation Level Read Committed
    Set Deadlock_Priority Low
    Select......
    From MyTable WITH (NOLOCK)
    GROUP BY .....
    Order BY ....
    First you define transactionlevel = "Read Committed", then you use a query hint "NOLOCK" which is equivalent to "Read Uncommitted"; so what do you want now, committed or uncommitted, you have to decide.
    Olaf Helper
    [ Blog] [ Xing] [ MVP]

  • It's not showing the play or next song buttons on locks screen when the musics are played

    it's not showing the play or next song buttons on locks screen when the musics are played

    kaeandcolesmon,
    If you open the recovery drive (partition) it should only have a single folder (Recovery).
    To make sure that your not saving restore points to that drive.
    See:
    Start, Control Panel, System, System Protection tab. Make sure the D drive partition is set to OFF so that it does not save there.
    I am a volunteer. I am not an HP employee.
    To say THANK YOU, press the "thumbs up symbol" to render a KUDO. Please click Accept as Solution, if your problem is solved. You can render both Solution and KUDO.
    The Law of Effect states that positive reinforcement increases the probability of a behavior being repeated. (B.F.Skinner). You toss me KUDO and/or Solution, and I perform better.
    (2) HP DV7t i7 3160QM 2.3Ghz 8GB
    HP m9200t E8400,Win7 Pro 32 bit. 4GB RAM, ASUS 550Ti 2GB, Rosewill 630W. 1T HD SATA 3Gb/s
    Custom Asus P8P67, I7-2600k, 16GB RAM, WIN7 Pro 64bit, EVGA GTX660 2GB, 750W OCZ, 1T HD SATA 6Gb/s
    Custom Asus P8Z77, I7-3770k, 16GB RAM, WIN7 Pro 64bit, EVGA GTX670 2GB, 750W OCZ, 1T HD SATA 6Gb/s
    Both Customs use Rosewill Blackhawk case.
    Printer -- HP OfficeJet Pro 8600 Plus

  • My computer locks up when attempting to print an Adobe Reader XI file.  How do I fix this??

    My computer locks up when attempting to print an Adobe Reader XI file.  How do I fix this??

    adobe reader 11.0.10  windows 7 home edition  Everything was working fine, but I got a "communication not available error" and rebooted the wifi.  The next day, when I went to print, after selecting the number of copies etc, I clicked on "print".  The next screen is the progress report   "Printing xxx.file.", and nothing happens.  The computer is completely lock and I have to reboot.  I can print excel and word files, but no pdf files, either from the internet or one of my documents.  I have tried saving the internet pages and then printing later, but that doesn't work either.  One suggestion was to go to edit, preferences, security enhanced and turn off enable.  That worked for one document ( a test) from my computer, but when I tried another file, no go

Maybe you are looking for