Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: ORA-08177: Cannot serialize access for this transaction

Re: ORA-08177: Cannot serialize access for this transaction

From: Eric Parker <eric.parkerthedross_at_virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:24:23 -0000
Message-ID: <ArZ1c.763$sq2.444@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net>

"Lusiana Lusiana" <lusiana_at_dummybit.nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message news:c28pj3$k0t$1_at_zcars0v6.ca.nortel.com...
> Hi,
>
> My system configuration: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris 5.8 with servlet/jsp
using
> Tomcat as client.
> Transaction isolation level is set to serializable.
>
> One of the tables has records referencing other records on the same table
> (no circular referencing).
> For a versioning purposes, when a record is updated, a new version of this
> record is created.
> And in turn, using triggers, new version will be created for every
> referencing records.
> A commit is performed at the end of these..
>
> I have been getting the error 'ORA-08177: Cannot serialize access for this
> transaction'
> when updating records that are referenced by a large number of records
> (when updating records that generates large number of other record
updates).
> They're fine for other smaller transactions.
>
> From Oracle manual:
> 'Oracle generates an error when a serializable transaction tries to update
> or
> delete data modified by a transaction that commits after the serializable
> transaction began'
> but I'm the only person initiating the transaction (I'm the only one on
the
> test server),
> so as far as I understand, there shouldn't be other transaction doing
> commits (???)
>
> What could be causing the error?
>
> Are there any system/table parameters to adjust to avoid getting this
error?
>
> Thank you,
> Lucy
>
>

Lucy

If you repeat the same transaction, do you get the same error ? We use to treat 08177s as "Data locked try again later" type errors. We would rollback then delay exponentially (with a limit) until it completed.
It certainly seems strange if you only had one connection to the database at that time.

Regards

eric

-- 
Remove the dross to contact me directly
Received on Fri Mar 05 2004 - 05:24:23 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US