Re: RE: enq: TM contention
From: Thomas Roach <troach_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:01:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAM6TEvJOoforLQF9oNr+6nGgxh3OXoTtc0=jhiUHKqS3y5Rqng_at_mail.gmail.com>
How about actually trying to find the SQL waiting on this wait? That might tell you something. Also, do you know who is holding the lock? What is that process running? That should give you a much better idea what the problem is.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Rajaram Subramanian < rajaram.subramanian_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:01:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAM6TEvJOoforLQF9oNr+6nGgxh3OXoTtc0=jhiUHKqS3y5Rqng_at_mail.gmail.com>
How about actually trying to find the SQL waiting on this wait? That might tell you something. Also, do you know who is holding the lock? What is that process running? That should give you a much better idea what the problem is.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Rajaram Subramanian < rajaram.subramanian_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> One other possibility which I have experienced is performing direct path
> insert on a table when there is already an existing uncommitted transaction
> on the same table and a direct path insert has been performed. In my case
> I was able to resolve it by explicitly inserting to the subpartition.
> Regards
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
-- Thomas Roach 813-404-6066 troach_at_gmail.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Dec 16 2011 - 16:01:28 CST