[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6554?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13992897#comment-13992897
 ] 

Mike Matrigali commented on DERBY-6554:
---------------------------------------

I am not seeing email from apache right now, will continue talking here.

I have no problem with raising the exception, and am not seeing why we need to 
have special cases
when we raise self deadlock.  I am not understanding why it is good to not wait 
in the subtransaction
if we know we are waiting for another thread to allocated the sequence.

I am just not understanding the "backing" up problem.  I assumed that we would 
want to eliminate the
too much contention error by now waiting some reasonable amount of time (not 
minimum) in the nested
transaction if we knew for sure it was not a self deadlock.  I assume if nested 
transaction can't get lock,
and we know it is not self deadlock there is no work that thread can do at that 
point.  So the options are:
1) throw an error and fail the insert immediately
2) wait for whatever thread is doing the update to finish and then proceed


> Too much contention followed by assert failure when accessing sequence in 
> transaction that created it
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6554
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6554
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.9.1.0, 10.11.0.0, 10.10.2.0
>            Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
>         Attachments: D6554.java, D6554_2.java, 
> derby-6554-01-aa-useCreationTransaction.diff, 
> derby-6554-01-ab-useCreationTransaction.diff, 
> derby-6554-01-ac-useCreationTransaction.diff, derby-6554-01-ad-bugfixes.diff, 
> derby-6554-02-aa-selfDeadlock.diff, derby-6554-02-ab-selfDeadlock.diff, 
> derby-6554-02-ac-selfDeadlock.diff, 
> derby-6554-02-ae-selfDeadlock_sps_compress.diff
>
>
> {noformat}
> ij version 10.11
> ij> connect 'jdbc:derby:memory:db;create=true' as c1;
> ij> autocommit off;
> ij> create sequence seq;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> values next value for seq;
> 1          
> -----------
> ERROR X0Y84: Too much contention on sequence SEQ. This is probably caused by 
> an uncommitted scan of the SYS.SYSSEQUENCES catalog. Do not query this 
> catalog directly. Instead, use the SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_PEEK_AT_SEQUENCE function 
> to view the current value of a query generator.
> ij> rollback;
> ERROR 08003: No current connection.
> ij> connect 'jdbc:derby:memory:db' as c2;
> ij(C2)> autocommit off;
> ij(C2)> create sequence seq;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij(C2)> values next value for seq;
> 1          
> -----------
> ERROR 38000: The exception 
> 'org.apache.derby.shared.common.sanity.AssertFailure: ASSERT FAILED Identity 
> being changed on a live cacheable. Old uuidString = 
> 0ddd00a9-0145-98ba-79df-000007d88b08' was thrown while evaluating an 
> expression.
> ERROR XJ001: Java exception: 'ASSERT FAILED Identity being changed on a live 
> cacheable. Old uuidString = 0ddd00a9-0145-98ba-79df-000007d88b08: 
> org.apache.derby.shared.common.sanity.AssertFailure'.
> {noformat}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to