Re: Maximum number of transaction. (Newby question).

Hello Niall,

1. The original poster 'desired' to see the situation wherein the locking phenomenon caused by paucity of ITL slots occurs, hence the 'desired' effect. The poster wanted eagerly(syn. desired) to educate himself through experimenting with Oracle. Of course, in a production environment, one usually does not 'desire' the above effect.
2. If it was an attempt to be funny, I apologize for my not getting the joke.

Rgds.

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:<3fa131a6$0$9473$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>...
> "VC" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:31e0625e.0310300645.4c908003_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hello Ben,
> >
> > The behaviour you're observing is explained by Oracle 9i's creating
> > _two_ ITL slots instead of one despite your specifying 'initrans 1'.
> > It can be easily verified by dumping the data block.
> >
> > If you perform an update #3 on row #3 in addition to the two you've
> > already initiated, you'll get the desired effect.
>
> This must be some new definition of the word 'desired' with which I am
> unfamiliar.
Received on Thu Oct 30 2003 - 12:17:38 CST