row-level locking bug?

Has anybody any idea what to do with the bug below? I think it is very serious and I am looking for a solution or an Informix version in which the bug is solved. Or am i missing something? Informix Dynamic Server Version 9.30.FC3 HPUX 11 (64 bits kernel) create table t1 (f1 int, f2 int) lock mode row;begin work; insert into t1 values (1,1); insert into t1 values (2,2); insert into t1 values (3,3);commit work; Situation1: Session1: begin work; update t1 set f1=2 where f2=1 Session2: begin work; update t1 set f1=2 where f2=2 244: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch next row. 107: ISAM error: record is locked. Situation2: Session1: begin work; insert into t1 values (4,4) Session2: begin work; delete from t1 where f1=5 244: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch next row. 107: ISAM error: record is locked. Situation3: create index i_t1_1 on t1(f2) Session1: begin work; insert into t1 values (4,4) Session2: begin work; delete from t1 where f1=51 row deleted Situation4: create table t2 (f1 int, f2 char(10)) lock mode row;begin work; insert into t2 values (1,1); insert into t2 values (2,2); insert into t2 values (3,3); create index i_t2_1 on t2(f2);commit work; Session1: begin work; insert into t2 values (5,5) Session2: begin work; delete from t2 where f2=1 244: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch next row. 107: ISAM error: record is locked. Reason: index can not be used (f2=1) To confirm this: Situation6: Session1: begin work; insert into t2 values (5,5) Session2: begin work; delete from t2 where f2="1" 1 row deleted Met vriendelijke groet, Peter Schouten Procesmanager Woningcorporaties Centric IT Solutions Postbus 29080 3001 GB Rotterdam Tel. 010 2170400 Fax. 010 2170338 ------------------------------------- The information included in this message is personal and/or confidential and intended exclusively for the addressees as stated. This message and/or the accompanying documents may contain confidential information and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended reader of this message, we urgently request that you notify Centric immediately and that you delete this e-mail and any copies of it from your system and destroy any printouts immediately. It is forbidden to distribute, reproduce, use or disclose the information in this e-mail to third parties without obtaining prior permission from Centric. We expressly point out that there are risks associated with the use of e-mail. Centric and the companies within the group shall not accept any liability whatsoever for damage resulting from the use of e-mail. Legally binding obligations can only arise for Centric by means of a written instrument, signed by an authorized representative of Centric. ------------------------------------- sending to informix-list

Schouten, Peter wrote: > Has anybody any idea what to do with the bug below? > I think it is very serious and I am looking for a solution or an Informix > version in which the bug is solved. > Or am i missing something? > > Informix Dynamic Server Version 9.30.FC3 > HPUX 11 (64 bits kernel) > > > create table t1 (f1 int, f2 int) lock mode row;> begin work; > insert into t1 values (1,1); > insert into t1 values (2,2); > insert into t1 values (3,3);> commit work; > > > Situation1: > > Session1: > begin work; > update t1 > set f1=2 > where f2=1 > > Session2: > begin work; > update t1 > set f1=2 > where f2=2 > > 244: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch next row. > 107: ISAM error: record is locked.> > > Situation2: > > Session1: > begin work; > insert into t1 values (4,4)> > Session2: > begin work; > delete from t1 where f1=5> > 244: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch next row. > 107: ISAM error: record is locked.> > > Situation3: > create index i_t1_1 on t1(f2)> > Session1: > begin work; > insert into t1 values (4,4)> > Session2: > begin work; > delete from t1 where f1=5> 1 row deleted > > > Situation4: > create table t2 (f1 int, f2 char(10)) lock mode row;> begin work; > insert into t2 values (1,1); > insert into t2 values (2,2); > insert into t2 values (3,3); > create index i_t2_1 on t2(f2);> commit work; > > Session1: > begin work; > insert into t2 values (5,5)> > Session2: > begin work; > delete from t2 where f2=1> > 244: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch next row. > 107: ISAM error: record is locked.> > Reason: index can not be used (f2=1) > > To confirm this: > Situation6: > > Session1: > begin work; > insert into t2 values (5,5)> > Session2: > begin work; > delete from t2 where f2="1"> > 1 row deleted > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Peter Schouten > Procesmanager Woningcorporaties > Centric IT Solutions > Postbus 29080 > 3001 GB Rotterdam > Tel. 010 2170400 > Fax. 010 2170338 > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > The information included in this message is personal and/or confidential and > intended exclusively for the addressees as stated. This message and/or the > accompanying documents may contain confidential information and should be > handled accordingly. If you are not the intended reader of this message, we > urgently request that you notify Centric immediately and that you delete > this e-mail and any copies of it from your system and destroy any printouts > immediately. > It is forbidden to distribute, reproduce, use or disclose the information in > this e-mail to third parties without obtaining prior permission from > Centric. We expressly point out that there are risks associated with the use > of e-mail. Centric and the companies within the group shall not accept any > liability whatsoever for damage resulting from the use of e-mail. Legally > binding obligations can only arise for Centric by means of a written > instrument, signed by an authorized representative of Centric. > ------------------------------------- > > > sending to informix-list Your post is too big for my currently available time. But if you don't have an index the querys must do a sequential scan and this will hit the lock from other session... It's not a bug. Regards.

"Schouten, Peter" <Peter.Schouten@centric.nl> wrote in message news:c7ag92$9g4$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > > Has anybody any idea what to do with the bug below? > I think it is very serious and I am looking for a solution or an Informix > version in which the bug is solved. > Or am i missing something? have you created necessary indices in the table. Without them, the engine will be forced to do a sequential scan. if isolation level requries locking all rows during inspection, you will get the error you are seeing.