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

>
> 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.

Added to that if it would happen in a production environment, one would like to reproduce the effect. Sometimes even on the same production environment, because in a testsetting you often can not reproduce the same setting.
Even when using the same data, it is difficult to get the data organised in exactly the same way in the blocks.

>
> 2. If it was an attempt to be funny, I apologize for my not getting
> the joke.

I am trying if I can see the humor in the 'request', and although I am known to make jokes about even the most morbide situations I do not succeede to get any humor out of it. It was a genuane serious request.
(I have allready spend several hours on researching this effect, your answer has given me were I have been looking for.).

thanks,
ben brugman

>
> 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 - 12:54:49 CST