Re: Hit deadlock with 2 threads updating DIFFERENT tables! Why?

From: theRat <john_hilgedick_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 11 May 2006 15:41:45 -0700
Message-ID: <1147387305.904309.213710@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

Brian,

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Session 9 is looking for an exclusive lock but it cannot obtain the lock because sessions 56 and 125 have a shared lock on that
common resource. ".

Also, there is a relationship between the Task table and the Manager table. The Task table has a column named "managerId" which is a foreign key to the Manager table (a task has a manager). Is it possible that since sessions 56 and session 125 *ARE* updating the managerId of their respectives tasks in the Task table, that this is putting some sort of lock on the entire Managers table - just briefly - to make sure the values the sessions are assigning to the managerId column are a valid ids in the Manager table? In other words, when you update a foreign key in one row from value A to value B (foreign keys to another table) does that place any sort of lock on row A or row B or the "entire table" in the other table?

Hope that made sense...

8) Received on Thu May 11 2006 - 17:41:45 CDT