
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
There is no theoretical limit, though time and gravity will always exert certain physical limitations. The time it takes to traverse the lock table gets longer and longer with each new item. And the more frames in the table, the more likely you are to frame fault and lose your timeslice. My question is: why are all those records locked? You only need to hold the lock until the item is written. Once it goes into the transaction stream, it no longer needs to be locked. Your locks never hinder YOU, only other processes attempting to read/lock the same item. Unless that other port cleared-locks with the U option to clear all locks for everyone, someone else was holding an item locked and you ran into it. That's a common hazard of attempting to update the world with a single shot. Mark Brown "Tony Gravagno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unless Mark knows off-hand, this sounds like a good question for the > RD Forum which is monitored by Engineering and Support staff. > > Tony > > "Dale Benedict" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >What is the maximum number of group locks and item locks allowed on a D3 7.3 > >or 7.4 Linux system? Does anyone know? > > > >I'm trying to implement transaction bracketing here. The old code here will > >on occasion update thousands of records in one transaction. I'd like to get > >the bracketing working so that if there is some sort of crash in the middle > >of the huge transactions, the investigation and cleanup of the data doesn't > >take a whack o' time. > > > >I had one transaction reaching close to 2500 according the command > >TRANSACTION STATUS (G command, and the process seemed to stall doing > >something with locks. A 'clear-locks' on another line allowed the > >transactioned process to complete. Did I max out the lock table? > > > >Thanks for your attention! Regards, > > > >Dale > > > > > > > > >
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |