| Author |
Message
|
| bobbee |
 Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:59 pm Post subject: Transactional State |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 20 Sep 2001
Posts: 541
Location: Tampa
|
I have a flow there is MQ, DB and Mapping nodes.
I turned off transactionallity in all the nodes, MQINPUT sez no, MQOUTPUTS say no, Compute nodes say COMMIT. the QMGR is not set up for XA.
When I run, I get to the last compute in a propagate and I am doing DB UPDATE, the node sez COMMIT. I get an exception indicating there is a prior unit of work. I cannot see where this is coming from. It is all turned off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
have you tried checking if the qmgr was ever transaction coordinator and if there is a pending transaction?
dspmqtrn -a if memory serves well...
Or may be the DB has a pending transaction on that row?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vishBroker |
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 135
|
How many additional instances you are running for MQ Input node.
There is possibility that two threads are trying to update the DB at the same time.
You may want to use ATOMIC block in the compute node.
Correcting - AUTOMIC -> ATOMIC
(Thanks fjb_saper)
Last edited by vishBroker on Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
| vishBroker wrote: |
How many additional instances you are running for MQ Input node.
There is possibility that two threads are trying to update the DB at the same time.
You may want to use 'AUTOMIC' block in the compute node. |
I think you meant ATOMIC there...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vishBroker |
| Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 135
|
| Quote: |
fib_saper wrote:
I think you meant ATOMIC there... |
You read my mind.  Thanks.
Correcting the reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
