Re: dbms_lock
From: <mh_at_pixar.com>
Date: 21 Aug 2009 00:52:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4a8defdc$0$13783$976e322_at_news.usenetserver.com>
Mark D Powell <Mark.Powell_at_eds.com> wrote:
> I do not see any issue with a session holding the UL for as long as
> the instance is running even if it is months. Oracle does the same
> with file recovery locks.
Date: 21 Aug 2009 00:52:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4a8defdc$0$13783$976e322_at_news.usenetserver.com>
Mark D Powell <Mark.Powell_at_eds.com> wrote:
> I do not see any issue with a session holding the UL for as long as
> the instance is running even if it is months. Oracle does the same
> with file recovery locks.
This is perfect. I have an active/standby server pair running behind a load-balancer. It's important that only the active is processing messages, since there is some program state involved.
Now I can
- open the DB connection
- grab the lock
- start the service
and the database locking takes care of the exclusive active/standby portion, and the load-balancing switch takes care of routing the traffic to the box that has the service running.
I am very pleased, I used to do this kind of coding for telecom apps and it was a lot of work to get it running and debugged!
Thanks again!!
Mark
-- Mark Harrison Pixar Animation StudiosReceived on Thu Aug 20 2009 - 19:52:44 CDT