Re: Whatcha' wanta have?????

Rob Vorbroker wrote: > > Wait a minute... > > These are actually great ideas and not full of > mindless name calling, prattle about which RDBMS is > better or anything to do with disparaging one person > or another country or heritage. What has this > newsgroup come to? Your mother wears army boots and Oracle sucks. Better? :o) > Keep it up - I for one love it. > > Rob Vorbroker > --- Andrew Hamm <ahamm@mail.com> wrote: >> Fernando Nunes wrote: >> > >> > After hitting the problem for the 100nd time I >> remember another one: >> > >> > Limit LOCKS per session. Don't allow a user to >> hang all the others... >> >> Nice. Controllable with an SQL statement, so that >> our 4GLs can be set low by >> default (ie library initialisation function) but >> some big reports can free >> their soul... >> >> If this was to satisfy all people, i could see a few >> parameters: >> >> 1) engine's absolute maximum per user (cannot be >> exceeded with an SQL >> control statement) A value of zero means no hard >> limit beyond LOCKS itself. >> >> 2) suggested maximum locks per process as the >> default offering. Processes >> can wind themselves up, but normally, no code would >> need changing. A value >> of zero means not set. >> >> this way, some sites can choose an absolute limit, >> and also, least amount of >> code needs changing to really take advantage of the >> feature. >> >> While we're at it - how's about the ability to set a >> LOCK growth factor like >> the SHMEM parameters? So we'd have >> >> LOCKS>> LOCKSADD >> LOCKSMAX -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche