Skip to Main Content

Integration

Announcement

For appeals, questions and feedback about Oracle Forums, please email oracle-forums-moderators_us@oracle.com. Technical questions should be asked in the appropriate category. Thank you!

OPENINFO and SesTm (session time limit)

707207May 6 2010 — edited May 18 2010
Hi All

And thanks in advance.

We don't quite understand SesTm and it's behavior. (We have spent lots of time reading about it and still)

We have SesTm=60 (and transaction timeout set to 5 min) how come a call to the database last 10 min and only then return with "ORA-02049" ?
* "ORA-02049: timeout: distributed transaction waiting for lock"

1) Why the query didn't return after 60 sec with an error as SesTm=60 instructs ?
*May be we don't understand SesTm. (please advice)

2) Why the query didn't return after 5 min as the transaction timeout instructs ? (TMQFORWORD -t 300)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXTRA INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) documentation of SesTm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The SesTm definition:

" SesTm=session_time_limit

Specifies the maximum number of seconds allowed in a transaction between one service and the next, or between a service and the commit or rollback of the transaction, before the system aborts the transaction. For example, SesTM=15 indicates that the session idle time limit is 15 seconds.

For example, if the TPM uses remote procedure calls between the client and the servers, then SesTM applies to the time between the completion of one RPC and the initiation of the next RPC, or the tx_commit, or the tx_rollback.

The value of 0 indicates no limit. Entering a value of 0 is strongly discouraged. It might tie up resources for a long time if something goes wrong. Also, if a child process has SesTM=0, then the SesTM setting is not effective after the parent process is terminated ."

You can read more about OPENINFO here:
http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/appdev.102/b14251/adfns_xa.htm#i1006488
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Regards
TechSgin

Edited by: TechSgin on May 6, 2010 2:09 PM

Edited by: TechSgin on May 6, 2010 2:42 PM
This post has been answered by Per Lindström on May 9 2010
Jump to Answer
Comments
Locked Post
New comments cannot be posted to this locked post.
Post Details
Locked on Jun 15 2010
Added on May 6 2010
6 comments
2,571 views