Recycling Conversations - Locking When Trying To Insert New Conversation Handle To SessionConversations Table
Feb 8, 2008
Hi,
I have implemented Remus Resanu's implementation from the Recycling Conversations article and I am experiencing locking issue when I try to insert new conversation handles to the SessionConversations table. I have copied the code in the article exactly including the activation procedure. Any ideas why I may be locking. I am thinking it is related to the HOLDLOCK hint on the table.
The sepcific line where I see locking is directly from the article:
INSERT INTO [SessionConversations] (SPID, FromService, ToService, OnContract, Handle) VALUES (...etc)
Thanks
View 6 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Dec 3, 2007
Hi
I'm using service broker and keep getting errors in the log even though everythig is working as expected
SQL Server 2005
Two databases
Two end points - 1 in each database
Two stored procedures:
SP1 is activated when a message enters the sending queue. it insert a new row in a table
SP2 is activated when a response is sent from the receiving queue. it cleans up the sending queue.
I have a table with an update trigger
In that trigger, if the updted row meets a certain condition a dialogue is created and a message is sent to the sending queue.
I know that SP1 and SP2 are behaving properly because i get the expected result.
Sp1 is inserteding the expected data in the table
SP2 is cleaning up the sending queue.
In the Sql Server log however i'm getting errors on both of the stored procs.
error #1
The activated proc <SP 1 Name> running on queue Applications.dbo.ffreceiverQueue output the following: 'The conversation handle is missing. Specify a conversation handle.'
error #2
The activated proc <SP 2 Name> running on queue ADAPT_APP.dbo.ffsenderQueue output the following: 'The conversation handle is missing. Specify a conversation handle.'
I would appreceiate anybody's help into why i'm getting this. have i set up the stored procs in correctly?
i can provide code of the stored procs if that helps.
thanks.
View 10 Replies
View Related
Jan 18, 2008
We have implemented our service broker architecture using conversation handle reuse per MS/Remus's recommendations. We have all of the sudden started receiving the conversation handle not found errors in the sql log every hour or so (which makes perfect sense considering the dialog timer is set for 1 hour). My question is...is this expected behavior when you have employed conversation recycling? Should you expect to see these messages pop up every hour, but the logic in the queuing proc says to retry after deleting from your conversation handle table so the messages is enqueued as expected?
Second question...i think i know why we were not receiving these errors before and wanted to confirm this theory as well. In the queuing proc I was not initializing the variable @Counter to 0 so when it came down to the retry logic it could not add 1 to null so was never entering that part of the code...I am guessing with this set up it would actually output the error to the application calling the queueing proc and NOT into the SQL error logs...is this a correct assumption?
I have attached an example of one of the queuing procs below:
Code Block
DECLARE @conversationHandle UNIQUEIDENTIFIER,
@err int,
@counter int,
@DialogTimeOut int,
@Message nvarchar(max),
@SendType int,
@ConversationID uniqueidentifier
select @Counter = 0 -- THIS PART VERY IMPORTANT LOL :)
select @DialogTimeOut = Value
from dbo.tConfiguration with (nolock)
where keyvalue = 'ConversationEndpoints' and subvalue = 'DeleteAfterSec'
WHILE (1=1)
BEGIN
-- Lookup the current SPIDs handle
SELECT @conversationHandle = [handle] FROM tConversationSPID with (nolock)
WHERE spid = @@SPID and messagetype = 'TestQueueMsg';
IF @conversationHandle IS NULL
BEGIN
BEGIN DIALOG CONVERSATION @conversationHandle
FROM SERVICE [InitiatorQueue_SER]
TO SERVICE 'ReceiveTestQueue_SER'
ON CONTRACT [TestQueueMsg_CON]
WITH ENCRYPTION = OFF;
BEGIN CONVERSATION TIMER ( @conversationHandle )
TIMEOUT = @DialogTimeOut
-- insert the conversation in the association table
INSERT INTO tConversationSPID
([spid], MessageType,[handle])
VALUES
(@@SPID, 'TestQueueMsg', @conversationHandle);
SEND ON CONVERSATION @conversationHandle
MESSAGE TYPE [TestQueueMsg] (@Message)
END
ELSE IF @conversationHandle IS NOT NULL
BEGIN
SEND ON CONVERSATION @conversationHandle
MESSAGE TYPE [TestQueueMsg] (@Message)
END
SELECT @err = @@ERROR;
-- if succeeded, exit the loop now
IF (@err = 0)
BREAK;
SELECT @counter = @counter + 1;
IF @counter > 10
BEGIN
-- Refer to http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms164086.aspx for severity levels
EXEC spLogMessageQueue 20002, 8, 'Failed to SEND on a conversation for more than 10 times. Error %i.'
BREAK;
END
-- We tried on the said conversation, but failed
-- remove the record from the association table, then
-- let the loop try again
DELETE FROM tConversationSPID
WHERE [spid] = @@SPID;
SELECT @conversationHandle = NULL;
END;
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 30, 2007
Hi
I have a replicated table that has a trigger attached to the it. The trigger fires off a service broker message for inserts. Originally for every insert, I would begin a conversation, send, and end the conversation when target send an end conversation. Since replication process is only using a single spid, I would like to reuse 1 conversation. the following is what I have for the send procedure in the initiator. I check the conversation_endpoints for any open conversation, if it's null, I start a new conversation and send else just send with the existing conversation. Is there anything wrong with this code? What could cause the conversation on the initiator to be null if I never end the conversation on the initiator side? thanks
DECLARE @dialog_handle uniqueidentifier
select @dialog_handle = conversation_handle from sys.conversation_endpoints where state = 'CO'
IF @dialog_handle is NULL
BEGIN DIALOG CONVERSATION @dialog_handle
FROM SERVICE [initiator]
TO SERVICE 'target'
ON CONTRACT [portcontract];
SEND ON CONVERSATION @dialog_handle
MESSAGE TYPE [Port] (@msg)
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 29, 2005
within the context of the sys.conversation_endpoints system view, there is:
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 7, 2008
Hi All,
Please help me out how to implement the locking in below scenario
Req -
There are two tables Table1 & Table2
If I will insert in table1 then related data fields will be auto updated in table2 , similarly based on the data in table2 table1 data needs to be updated.
Now the sync of table1 & table2 is working fine.
My prob is we are handling the updation/insertion from the UI screens . Two separate screen for each table. When we have multiple user accessing the screens say - User1 updates table1 and User2 updates table2 then we need to implement the locking so that at one time one screen will allow updation in the table1 and hence table2.
The other screen shouldnt allow updation in table2 and hence in table1.
This is very common locking functionality ...but am not getting any way to implement it , Please advise.
Srain.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Apr 4, 2007
Hi,
I want to insert a record in a table having an identity column as primary key. I want to lock the table while inserting. so that no one should be able to insert, select, update, delete from the table. and once my insert is over, then will release the lock.
Can I have the code for the same. M using SQL SERVER 2005.
Thanks,
Rahul Jha
View 8 Replies
View Related
Dec 1, 2006
I have a initiator and a target service broker peer.
Both are controlled by a C# unit test. The initiator uses the Microsoft.Samples.SqlServer class. The target service uses stored procedure activation.
Sending a message from the initiator to the target, saves the content of the message, along with its conversation handle in the target's database specific table.
The unit test needs - at a later time - to instruct the target to send a message back on the same conversation handle to the initiator service.
For this the C# unit test creates a Conversation off of the saved conversation handle:
Service client = new Service("cleintservicename", conn, tran);
Conversation dialog = null;
dialog = new Conversation(client, convHandle);
Sending the message on this dialog generates an error "Message body: <Error xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/SQL/ServiceBroker/Error"><Code>-8495</Code><Description>The conversation has already been acknowledged by another instance of this service.</Description></Error>".
Is the error due to the fact that a service - using the activated stored procedure already picked up the conversation, so that a new reference to the service can not be created through the Service class in CLR?
If so, I might need then to skip the activated stored procedure in favor or a CLR service, alltogether?
Any help - greatly appreciated.
View 7 Replies
View Related
Sep 18, 2015
I have two tables for insertion in one transaction scope. Table one have 10 rows. After first table insert statement (not yet committed) if I run select on first table from other session, it holds table until my insert is committed or rolled back and from (SSMS), it display 10 rows and then wait for transaction scope till finished. My question is do I need to use no lock hint in this situation. Or there is something wrong with isolation level. One saying that in this situation table should not hols select while insert is in transaction scope.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Nov 30, 2007
Hi,
I implemented the pattern suggested in the 'Recycling Conversations' article that Remus Resanu presented. Everything works great except ended conversations on the receiver remain in the sys.conversation_endpoints table forever in the 'CLOSED' state.
Is there some setting I am missing to have those conversations purged from the endpoints table. I am concerned that in the production environment this table will grow very large.
Thanks
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 19, 2007
Hi,
I have a table Called Actcodes and has 2 columns Name and Description...
And i want to insert the data from this table called PlanDBF to ActCode..
and this my insert statement...
INSERT INTO Statements..AscActCodes
(
Name,
Description
)
SELECT
ACT_CODE1,
ACT_DESC1
ACT_CODE2,
ACT_DESC2,
ACT_CODE3,
ACT_DESC3,
ACT_CODE4,
ACT_DESC4,
ACT_CODE5,
ACT_DESC5,
ACT_CODE6,
ACT_DESC6,
ACT_CODE7,
ACT_DESC7,
ACT_CODE8,
ACT_DESC8,
ACT_CODE9,
ACT_DESC9,
ACT_CODE10,
ACT_DESC10,
ACT_CODE11,
ACT_DESC11,
ACT_CODE12,
ACT_DESC12,
ACT_CODE13,
ACT_DESC13,
ACT_CODE14,
ACT_DESC14,
ACT_CODE15,
ACT_DESC15,
ACT_CODE16,
ACT_DESC16,
ACT_CODE17,
ACT_DESC17,
ACT_CODE18,
ACT_DESC18,
ACT_CODE19,
ACT_DESC19,
ACT_CODE20,
ACT_DESC20
FROM
PlanDBF
each actcode and its description is gonna be different and so i am not sure how to do this 1 - many column insert.
Any help will be appreciated.
Regards
Karen
View 7 Replies
View Related
Sep 17, 1998
SQL Server 6.5 on-line help states that IRL is only effective if the table has a unique clustered index defined on the table. IF this true and if so does anyone know why.
thanks,
Stu.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 11, 1999
Does anyone know how to stop SQL server from applying exclusive table locks on mass Insert statements. I need to allow concurrent inserts into the same table using INSERT ... SELECT * FROM ...
SQL Server applies exclusive table locks that prevent this. I've tried setting LE as high as it goes but with no success. Microsoft suggest using single row inserts but this will be far too slow!
Any help would be much appreciated.
Jim Plant
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 11, 1999
Does anyone know how to stop SQL server from applying exclusive table locks on mass Insert statements. I need to allow concurrent inserts into the same table using INSERT ... SELECT * FROM ...
SQL Server applies exclusive table locks that prevent this. I've tried setting LE as high as it goes but with no success. Microsoft suggest using single row inserts but this will be far too slow!
Any help would be much appreciated.
Jim Plant
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 11, 2001
I am trying to insert data using the select * command from one table into another, but query analyzer just seems to run and run (over one hour before I stopped it). The current activity shows a huge number of extent locks. The table itself has approx 90,000 rows. What is causing this insert not to finish, and how do I sort it?
I am a little confused over LE thresholds etc. At present the server has the following settings:
LE threshold max - 10000
LE threshold min - 20
LE threshold % - 0
locks - 60000
Will changing these values help??
Derek
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 5, 2014
I thought it's easy but somehow got lost, what is the good way to insert that Comma intelligently, depending if any of var value is NULL.
-- DECLARE @var1 varchar(10) = 'alpha1', @var2 varchar(10) = 'bravo2', @var3 varchar(10) = 'charlie3',@var4 varchar(10) = 'delta4'
DECLARE @var1 varchar(10) = 'alpha1', @var2 varchar(10) = NULL, @var3 varchar(10) = 'charlie3',@var4 varchar(10) = 'delta4'
SELECT ss= (CONCAT(@var1, + iif(COALESCE(@var1,@var2,@var3,@var4) IS NULL,'',', '),
@var2, + iif(COALESCE (@var2,@var3,@var4) IS NULL,'',', '),
@var3, + iif(COALESCE( @var3,@var4) IS NULL,'',', '),
@var4) )
View 3 Replies
View Related
Sep 10, 2014
There are 2 tables which need to have data inserted into them for auditing purposes. The number of inserts per minute seems be at least 50-100. How to reduce locks during inserts.
There are 2 tables
Table1
ID - Surrogate Key/identity Column
SomeColumn1
SomeColumn2
SomeColumn3
SomeColumn4_timestamp
clustered index on ID column
Table2
ID Column ..... there's a call to get id from SCOPE_IDENTITY()
SomeColumn1
SomeColumn2
clustered index on ID column
NC idx on SomeColum1
NC idx on SomeColum2
A Sproc has the following code:
I changed the names to protect the innocent
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[logging_sp]
@Audit BIGINT,
@varT1_1 NVARCHAR (50),
@varT1_2 NVARCHAR (64),
@varT1_3 INT,
@VarTime DATETIME,
@varT2_1 NVARCHAR (50),
@varT2_2 NVARCHAR (1024),
[code]....
View 5 Replies
View Related
Apr 19, 2006
Hi:
My service broker was working perfectly fine earlier. As I was testing...I recreated the whole service broker once again.
Now I am able to get the message at the server end from intiator. When trying to send message from my server to the intiator it gives this error in sql profiler.
broker:message undeliverable: This message could not be delivered because the Conversation ID cannot be associated with an active conversation. The message origin is: 'Transport'.
broker:message undeliverable This message could not be delivered because the 'receive sequenced message' action cannot be performed in the 'ERROR' state.
How do I proceed now ?
Thanks,
Pramod
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jun 19, 2015
I have an SSIS package doing a bulk insert from a file. Then later on I'm trying to delete that file (in a file delete task), but I'm getting an error:[File System Task] Error: An error occurred with the following error message: "The process cannot access the file 'xyz' because it is being used by another process.".I'm wondering if there isn't some way to 'tweak' the bulk insert syntax so that it doesn't lock the file?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Apr 24, 2007
I am currently designing an auditing application using Service Broker. Right now, when I send a message from a trigger, I start a conversation, and later on when the message has been processed, the conversation has ended. One thing I am concerned with is that when a lot of updates are occurring on the system, if the amount of conversations being created will eat up system resources. Does it make sense to create them and end them later, or should I try to reuse them?
Tim
View 10 Replies
View Related
Mar 20, 2008
From a service broker newbie...
Most of the examples I've found and played with demonstrate two way conversation. A sender initiates a call, and gets a message back.
My Requirements doesn't really need two way communication. I have a scenario where triggers on two different tables result in modifications to a third table, and I don't want the triggers to deadlock each other, so an asynchronous queueing mechanism seems like the perfect solution...
But I can't seem to make it work one way.
I can get one message through, and then all subsequent messages hang up in the transmission queue with the very informative "One or more messages could not be delivered to the local service targeted by this dialog."
I'm thinking all the examples work the way they do because you have to notify the transmitter that the message was
received by sending a message back... and by not doing this I'm stuck in the first conversation. I was thinking that by doing END CONVERSATION <Msg Handle> in the stored procedure bound to the receiver's queue was doing that.
Do I have to communicate bi-directionally always? I guess this is a safety feature but I trust MSMQ to deliver messages...
Thx
View 3 Replies
View Related
Sep 27, 2007
Hi there,
I am trying to create an application that requires n number of columns in table on run time. For example, I want to create a table of products and its properties. For that, I can use master and detail tables, but my problem starts when I get different number of characteristics for different products. Lets say, I have a product that has some colour and size, but for another product, I need expiry date as well and it continues like this. Now I want to know, what I can do to handle this problem. Please help me in this.
Best Regards,
Asif Hameed
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 5, 2006
Wierd problem here
As one user, when i select * from sys.conversation_endpoints I can see all (I assume) conversations in all states specifically DO, DI and CD
However when I change to another user I see only DI
Why is this?
If it is a permissions issue what permission do I have to grant to a user to see all conversations in sys.conversation.endpoints?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 26, 2006
Say I have a conversation established and the initiator server needs to reboot. Will the conversation automatically restart when the server comes back up? If not, can I get it to with some setting? If not, what is the best way to handle this?
Thanks - Amos
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 17, 2007
Hi -
In my application, I need to be able to guarantee that processing for a re-used conversation is completed prior to starting processing the next (re-used) conversation. My application is based on the concepts from the sample posted on Remus's blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/remusrusanu/archive/2007/05/02/recycling-conversations.aspx#comments). Essentially (in this sample), we create a new conversation for each SPID and re-use the conversation, so that messages are sent through the queue (and processed in order) for each SPID. SPID was used in the sample code as an example of some application-specific "thing" that you care about message ordering for. To prevent a conversation from living forever (using up log/resources), they are ended after 1 hour using DialogTimer and a customer message type.
My conundrum is this:
Assume conversation 1 (on SPID 1) is flooded with a large number of messages just before the conversation timer expires. The DialogTimer then expires before the target queue is drained. The sample code (mentioned above) then creates a new conversation for the same SPID (with a DialogTimer of 1 hour). Until the queue for conversation1 is drained, we have 2 conversations being processed for the same SPID. This same problem would occur in any application where you re-use conversations for a period of time (using DialogTimer), and then start a new conversation when the DialogTimer expires.
So although I like having the idea fof being able to re-use conversations, I would need to guarantee that conversation 1 is finished processing before conversation 2 starts processing (for the same SPID, to be consistent with the sample above). If I could get these 2 conversations into the same conversation group on the target queue, the CG locking would solve the problem. But because conversation groups only apply to the initiator queue (when you begin dialog with related conversation), I have no "out of the box" way to control how the conversation groups are associated on the target queue. Remus posted an idea here (bottom of thread): http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=182646&SiteID=1, which was to just send a special message at the beginning of each new conversation (containing the conversation group to use), and then doing a move conversation to conversationgroupid on the target queue. I've tried this solution, and the problem is 1.) if the set convo message fails for some reason, the conversation group is not set and 2.) if the target queue seems to reject most of my move conversation commands with the error "The destination conversation group '<conversation guid>' is invalid." - which I am guessing is due to the fact that this convo group id is being used on the initiator as well.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
Terryc
View 6 Replies
View Related
Sep 20, 2006
I have a sp that will do two select from two table. now, can datareader read both table or only dataset can? if datareader can? how to handle it?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 4, 2008
Hello friends
I am new to SQL database design.I am having a table name customerletter_master in which all details of customer letters are saved.At a time i.e in single second around 200- 400 entry are made in customerletter_master table. Hits to customerletter_master table are more.
Following fields are used in customerletter_master – CID (autogen number), letterno(primary key),consignee, consignor, letterstatus1, letterstatus2, letterstatus3, POD, and some more fields. When letter passes to different stages letterstatus1 is filled to yes and then letterstatus2 and letterstatus3 are filled according to passage of letter.
And at same time many user can accesses the customerletter_master table to search any letter according to letterno. Therefore customerletter_master is used to enter data and to search data at same time and there can be more than 200-400 users doing add and search records to and from customerletter_master
how should i design this table. What should i use to enter and search record and minimize the table hits made by the user at same time. Should i use store procedures or any other method to add and search record. Plz help me out by giving some example.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 23, 2008
Hi,
I'm only new to Reporting services and have just started working on a report model for ad hoc reporting.
I have around 50 tables, many of them related through FK's. How can I handle this when designing the model?
E.G
I have a Table called Posts, which has a Hospital ID which is an FK to the Hospitals table. A relationship exists between the two in my Data Source View, however I cannot access the Hospital Name (stored in the Hospital table) using the report builder.
I'd greatly appreciate any help you can give.
Thanks,
John
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 7, 2002
Gurus,
I am trying to execute this stored procedure when I try to change all occurences of a field in a table.
(
@Dept char(8),
@DDept char(8)
)
As
Set NoCOUNt On
Begin
Select '@DDept'
update phodept set fo_dept = @Ddept
where fo_dept = @Dept
update phone set fo_dept = @Ddept where fo_dept = @Dept
End
GO
The table/database is being used by others, generally in a read only mode.
via a VB 5.0 FE program.
The Stored procedure, when it is invoked, just hangs like it is waiting for exclusive use of the table.
Is there a way around it, without doing major surgery on the VB code?
Thanks.
Sam
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 24, 2002
Hello,
I am working on the implementation of a database for my company and I have
a simple (I hope) question to ask.
I have the following stored procedure that will be running when I want
(actually when I want to delete a customer).
Do not mind if you do not understand what this procedure does... ;-)
Actually the Level8View is a VIEW of a nested table
(CustomerData->CustomerData).
CREATE Procedure DeleteCustomer
@ClientID INT
AS
UPDATE Level8View
SET UpCode = Level2, Level1=Level2, Level2=Level3, Level3=Level4, Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level1=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level2=Level3, Level3=Level4, Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level2=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level3=Level4, Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level3=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level4=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level5=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level6=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level7=Level8
WHERE Level7=@ClientID
DELETE FROM Customers
WHERE ClientID=@ClientID
GO
I checked this procedure and works perfectly.
What I want to do is to somehow lock the WHOLE TABLE (CustomerData) or the
view (Level8View) before the Update statements and unlock it after the
delete statements.
I do not want to do a Row by Row lock, or Page by Page lock since the updates
in this table occur in the whole table and during that operation I do not
want other threads to issue SELECT, INSERT or UPDATE statements.
Can someone answer me how I can lock and unlock the whole view or table
please?
I will appreciate it for your answer. Thanks.
Yours, sincerely
Efthymios Kalyviotis
ekalyviotis@comerclub.gr
View 4 Replies
View Related
Nov 11, 2005
I have a SP for an e-commerce site that creates an order doing the following fashion:
begin
-Fill out some variables
*Critical Section
-Create Order number
-While loop select on order table and recreate if ordernumber already exists
-Insert into order table
*End Critical Section
-Insert into order lines table, address table, etc.
commit
The problem is the Create Order number and While loop used to be at the top and occasionally I would get duplicate order numbers if two submitted at the same time. I rearranged it to the above and it happens less now.
My question is if there is a way to put an XLOCK on the orders table only during the critical section lines. Also my understanding is that once the insert into orders is done that the server will hold a lock until the commit in case of rollback.? I don't want to XLOCK the whole SP if I don't have to. It is quick though.
Thanks
View 3 Replies
View Related
Apr 25, 2008
I need 2 unique sequential numbers to be stored in the same table. Obviously, for the first number I can use an auto-number field. For the second number, I would like to use a 2nd table with just 1 field that would only ever store 1 record. The idea being that if a user needs to generate a new unique number, they lock the 2nd table, lookup the current value, store the value in a variable for use, add 1 to the value of the number in the table, then unlock the table.
Presumably, I'd use something like this:
SELECT OrderNo
FROM tblUniqueOrderNumber (WITH TABLOCK)
Does this lock the table so no other users can read/write the table? If so, how do I unlock the table once I've updated OrderNo? What happens if another user then reads the table while it has a TABLOCK applied? I'm using SQL Server 2005 and the database is a multi-user database. I have a feeling I'm not going about this the best way possible, but I'd like to know how the table lock works eitherway.
View 12 Replies
View Related
Apr 30, 2004
hi
can i lock my table while doing an updation so that all others in n/w can insert into the table only after my operation is completed?
if a user attempts to save/update the 'locked'table, will he get an error message or will his application (using ADO) will wait till the table gets unlocked?
View 2 Replies
View Related
