>>Assuming that you are certain that this is the code in question, then I would conclude the following:
>>1) the record being obtained *IS* locked by some other process
>>2) That process is holding the record for a long time (permanently?)
>>
>>It is hard to say, but it is possible that the message is actually coming from the REPLACE command - if the record is long-term locked by something, then the RLOCK will be tried a total of 20 times and then you will do the REPLACE anyhow.
>
>Any suggestion on making this code more robust?
Yup. Put the SECONDS clause there. :)
Vlad
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only