Re: Whatcha' wanta have?????

Posted in 2004

Ronald Cole — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:00:14 -0800 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

"Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> writes: > Ronald Cole wrote: >> A "single user" mode... and I vote for the "informix" user instead of >> DBA. > > Ummmmm, I don't. Well, it was a "wish" list request. I can't rightly reason out how such a feature could be safely implemented. Transactions in progress could hold resources that the DBA would need so simply suspending them isn't enough and waiting for all current transactions to end could leave the DBA waiting for quite a while more than he would like. And if you're going to start aborting transactions, then you should probably just warn your users and shutdown the engine to perform the desired maintenance. Perhaps the original requester is looking for an interface that allows for easy "Son of Overlord"-style control over a running instance. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B

↪ replying to Ronald Cole

Andrew Hamm — Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:41:04 +1100 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

Ronald Cole wrote: > "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> writes: >> Ronald Cole wrote: >>> A "single user" mode... and I vote for the "informix" user instead >>> of DBA. >> >> Ummmmm, I don't. > > Well, it was a "wish" list request. don't sweat it ... i was speaking for myself, not knocking u down. Informix is quite a reasonable choice, but there is scope for other specific users to be nominated instead/as well. > I can't rightly reason out how > such a feature could be safely implemented. Transactions in progress > could hold resources that the DBA would need so simply suspending them > isn't enough and waiting for all current transactions to end could > leave the DBA waiting for quite a while more than he would like. And > if you're going to start aborting transactions, then you should > probably just warn your users and shutdown the engine to perform the > desired maintenance. Currently the engine has a Graceful switch to quiescent mode, and also an immedate switch to quiescent mode. When graceful, all existing users are allowed to continue, but no new sessions are accepted. In immediate mode, all existing sessions are closed, and therefore their transactions are rolled back. This could just as easily apply for a switch to admin mode - graceful or immediate.