Board index » delphi » table is busy

table is busy

I got my first ever report of the above problem tonight.  dBase tables, and
I think they're running under Citrix or Metaframe.  Supposedly happens in a
routine that adds a lot of records to one table.  I checked the code and
it's using both append and post although the latter is supposedly not
necessary.  Any clues?

Paul / ColumbuSoft
www.columbusoft.com

 

Re:table is busy


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:49:48 -0400, "Paul Ferrara"

Quote
<p...@nospam.columbusoft.com> wrote:
>I got my first ever report of the above problem tonight.  dBase tables, and
>I think they're running under Citrix or Metaframe.  Supposedly happens in a
>routine that adds a lot of records to one table.  I checked the code and
>it's using both append and post although the latter is supposedly not
>necessary.  Any clues?

Paul,

AFAIK, this error can only come up when trying to open a table
exclusively while it is already open elsewhere or by trying to open it
shareable when it is already opened exclusively in another session.

HTH,

Jan

Re:table is busy


Hi Jan,

This supposedly is happening inside a while not EOF loop and no tables are
being opened nor anything else other than append, assign, post.

However, after that process, a couple of ExecSQL statements are issued to
clear out the records that have been posted (the tables get closed first).
IYO, is it possible that we might have a timing problem or something?  It
doesn't occur every time the process is run, reportedly only during large
batches.

I've asked for more info to determine exactly where in the unit this occurs.

Paul / ColumbuSoft
www.columbusoft.com

Quote
Jan Sprengers <j...@nospamplease.adm2000.be> wrote in message

news:39c07ca4.3710245@forums.inprise.com...
Quote
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:49:48 -0400, "Paul Ferrara"
> <p...@nospam.columbusoft.com> wrote:

> >I got my first ever report of the above problem tonight.  dBase tables,
and
> >I think they're running under Citrix or Metaframe.  Supposedly happens in
a
> >routine that adds a lot of records to one table.  I checked the code and
> >it's using both append and post although the latter is supposedly not
> >necessary.  Any clues?

> Paul,

> AFAIK, this error can only come up when trying to open a table
> exclusively while it is already open elsewhere or by trying to open it
> shareable when it is already opened exclusively in another session.

> HTH,

> Jan

Re:table is busy


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:15:32 -0400, "Paul Ferrara"

Quote
<p...@nospam.columbusoft.com> wrote:
>However, after that process, a couple of ExecSQL statements are issued to
>clear out the records that have been posted (the tables get closed first).
>IYO, is it possible that we might have a timing problem or something?  It
>doesn't occur every time the process is run, reportedly only during large
>batches.

I don't know of any ExecSQL statements that need exclusive access to
the tables.

A (wild) guess would be that the error is caused by a lock timeout on
updating your indices.  See if increasing the DbiSetLockRetry setting
changes anything.

Jan

Re:table is busy


Thanks for the WAG.  I'll have them try it.  I see that the default is 5
seconds though.  Hard to imagine it taking that long to update the index.

Paul / ColumbuSoft
www.columbusoft.com

Quote
Jan Sprengers <j...@nospamplease.adm2000.be> wrote in message

news:39c1d010.4031156@forums.inprise.com...
Quote
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:15:32 -0400, "Paul Ferrara"
> <p...@nospam.columbusoft.com> wrote:

> >However, after that process, a couple of ExecSQL statements are issued to
> >clear out the records that have been posted (the tables get closed
first).
> >IYO, is it possible that we might have a timing problem or something?  It
> >doesn't occur every time the process is run, reportedly only during large
> >batches.

> I don't know of any ExecSQL statements that need exclusive access to
> the tables.

> A (wild) guess would be that the error is caused by a lock timeout on
> updating your indices.  See if increasing the DbiSetLockRetry setting
> changes anything.

> Jan

Re:table is busy


On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:22:55 -0400, "Paul Ferrara"

Quote
<p...@nospam.columbusoft.com> wrote:
>I see that the default is 5 seconds though.
>Hard to imagine it taking that long to update the index.

I've been told that the documentation is wrong and that the default is
actually 0 seconds.  But this is not easy to verify of course.

Jan

Other Threads