Bug #6665 | deadlock between odbc functions and transaction handling | ||
---|---|---|---|
Submitted: | 16 Nov 2004 13:01 | Modified: | 30 May 2013 12:14 |
Reporter: | Robert Bagyinszki | Email Updates: | |
Status: | Closed | Impact on me: | |
Category: | Connector / ODBC | Severity: | S2 (Serious) |
Version: | 3.51.06 | OS: | Solaris (solaris 8) |
Assigned to: | Matthew Lord | CPU Architecture: | Any |
[16 Nov 2004 13:01]
Robert Bagyinszki
[16 Nov 2004 13:20]
Heikki Tuuri
Robert, are you sure the 2 threads are using DIFFERENT connections to mysqld? And that they are not, by accident, sharing the same statement object, etc.? Regards, Heikki
[16 Nov 2004 13:44]
Robert Bagyinszki
Heiiki, Yes, my program traces out the values of handles of connection and statement, and they are different for the two threads. Robert
[23 Dec 2004 13:22]
Tim Besser
Recently encountered what may be the same with 3.51.10 and unixODBC 2.2.10 on Linux. Looking a little closer, my problem seemed to be with the locking level of unixODBC. It has four locking levels, the default is '3' - which means the driver is 'protected at the env level'. Changed it to '0', which means protect the internal driver manager structures only and assume the driver is MT-safe. ('Threading = 0' in odbcinst.init). I then no longer had a problem.
[21 Jun 2005 17:32]
Matthew Lord
Hi Robert, "Recently encountered what may be the same with 3.51.10 and unixODBC 2.2.10 on Linux. Looking a little closer, my problem seemed to be with the locking level of unixODBC. It has four locking levels, the default is '3' - which means the driver is 'protected at the env level'. Changed it to '0', which means protect the internal driver manager structures only and assume the driver is MT-safe. ('Threading = 0' in odbcinst.init). I then no longer had a problem." Did this also relieve the problem for you? Best Regards
[21 Jul 2005 23:00]
Bugs System
No feedback was provided for this bug for over a month, so it is being suspended automatically. If you are able to provide the information that was originally requested, please do so and change the status of the bug back to "Open".
[30 May 2013 12:14]
Bogdan Degtyariov
I'm closing this bug because I can not continue without feedback from the reporter. If you have new info, please reopen the report.