Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Help insert with a select using a DB Link - ORA-03106: fatal two-task communication protocol error

Re: Help insert with a select using a DB Link - ORA-03106: fatal two-task communication protocol error

From: Enkidu Utnapishtim <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:44:06 GMT
Message-ID: <>

As a former civil-service DBA with DoD (8 years), I know what you're going thru. I can empathize with you. It is truly a wonder that the gov't can get anything done. However, knowing that doesn't help you solve your problem. By the way, the problem you're having is that Oracle sometimes loses track of where it's supposed to be doing the work when you have so many intermediary dblinks ... or running out of resources on one of the intermediary sites as it's building local temporary tables (at which point it just throws up its hands).

One thing I might offer (though I don't have enuf info to know if it will help in your situation ... not to mention that at that time I was a DBA on Oracle 5/6/7) - when we tried to "gather" data from multiple sites and roll it up to our HQ database, we had a devil of a time getting it to work. After much time spent on the phone to Oracle tech support (well, mostly listening to the elevator music while on hold), they suggested we replace the "INSERT ... SELECT FROM remote(s)" with a "COPY FROM remote ... SELECT ... FROM remote(s)" statement (don't recall the exact syntax). We didn't think it would help (after all, the goal in life for the COPY command is to copy stuff from a non-Oracle database). But there must be something in the COPY command that doesn't stumble over requests like the INSERT statement does.

Of course, from the info you gave, it might not be a viable solution for you. However, when faced with absolute "deliverables" from the gov't, you might be able to jury-rig something.

Roger Crowley - DBA - LearningFramework

Don wrote:
> I agree this is not the ideal situation. Unfortunalty this is a
> governement project so sanity does not apply.
> We cannot get access to the source server (server A) for political
> reasons.
> Another group created the views of server A on Server B. The people
> at A know that we use them but for some reason will not give us direct
> access.
> For politcal reasons we cannot directly access Server B from our
> unsecure facility. We set up a server (server C) in a secure
> environment and created views based on the views of server B.
> Now, from our server D in the unsecured office we can link to server
> C. C links to B and B to A.
> Everyone knows whats going on. No one is being decieved. This is the
> kind of shit I have to put up with. I'll never understand how the
> government works but I know technical people are not allowed input in
> these decision. The decision are made by some of the stupidest people
> I have ever meet.
> I am still trying to make this work. Can u offer any help?
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:12:23 +0200, "Sybrand Bakker"
> <> wrote:

>>This must be a lousy network, and I don't think anyone even wants to build
>>recursively distributed solutions. Think about it: you have a distributed
>>transaction between server a and server b and server b and server c.
>>Any glitch and you are toast.

Received on Fri Jul 19 2002 - 18:44:06 CDT

Original text of this message