Re: Lock Without Owner
The locks that you are indicating is the head of the shared locks on the
database itself. The head of the database shared lock list is generally
going to have an owner of zero. This is done to prevent a bogus deadly
embrace on the locks associated with the database lock chain.
FYI --- any lock on tblsnum 0x10002 is a lock on the database.
"Gary Andrus" <andrusg@aetna.com> wrote in message
news:1125416431.956476.113540@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> When I run onstat -k, I have found that I've got a lock without an
> owner. I've searched the archives a bit and found 2 other threads (3+
> years old) that mentioned something like this, but I never saw an
> explanation for it.
>
> I'm running on IDS 9.40.UC4 on SunOS 5.8. Here's a portion of the
> output showing the lock without the owner.
>
> sidb1p:informix[~]-[19]% onstat -k
>
> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 9.40.UC4 -- On-Line -- Up 171
> days 14:23:24 -- 487424 Kbytes>
> Locks
> address wtlist owner lklist type tblsnum rowid
> key#/bsiz
> a09713c 0 1221cb70 0 HDR+S 100002 205 0
> <snip>
> 16cdd1b8 0 12230850 0 S 100002 205 0
> 16cde904 0 0 0 HDR+ 100002 206 0
> 16ce1ae4 0 12233f28 0 S 100002 205 0
> <snip>
>
> 32 active, 16000 total, 2048 hash buckets, 3 lock table overflows
> sidb1p:informix[~]-[20]%
>
>
> I haven't noticed any issues with the database, but noticed this
> condition while investigating system status and thought it was a bit
> odd.
>
> Has anyone ever seen this? Is there an explanation for this lock?
>
> TIA,
> Gary
>