Simple .NET/ASP.NET PDF document editor web control SDK

Note In Oracle Database 11g Release 2 and above, you may set DDL_LOCK_TIMEOUT in order to have DDL wait.

> agent.Post(Message2(100));; message 2! val it : unit = () > agent.UnsafeMessageQueueContents;; val it : seq<msg> = seq [Message3("abc")] When we sent Message3 to the message processor, the message was ignored. However, the last line shows that the unprocessed Message3 is still in the message queue, which we have examined by using the backdoor property UnsafeMessageQueueContents.

ssrs code 128, ssrs code 39, ssrs fixed data matrix, winforms pdf 417 reader, winforms qr code reader, winforms upc-a reader, itextsharp remove text from pdf c#, replace text in pdf c#, winforms ean 13 reader, c# remove text from pdf,

This is achieved typically via the ALTER SESSION command. For example, you could issue ALTER SESSION SET DDL_LOCK_TIMEOUT=60; before issuing the DROP TABLE command. The DROP TABLEcommand issued would then wait 60 seconds before returning an error (or it could succeed of course as well!)

The ORA-00054 message is a confusing message at first, since there is no direct method to specify NOWAIT or WAIT on a DROP TABLE at all. It is just the generic message you get when you attempt to perform an operation that would be blocked, but the operation does not permit blocking. As you ve seen before, it s the same message you get if you issue a SELECT FOR UPDATE NOWAIT against a locked row. The following shows how these locks would appear in the V$LOCK table: ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> create table t1 ( x int ); Table created. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> create table t2 ( x int ); Table created. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> connect / Connected. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> insert into t1 values ( 1 ); 1 row created. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> insert into t2 values ( 1 ); 1 row created. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> select (select username 2 from v$session 3 where sid = v$lock.sid) username, 4 sid, 5 id1, 6 id2, 7 lmode, 8 request, block, v$lock.type 9 from v$lock 10 where sid = (select sid

Note You can find further examples of asynchronous message processing with F# at http://

I have an idea, borne out by first-hand personal experience (meaning I made the mistake myself), as to why database-backed software development efforts so frequently fail. Let me be clear that I m including here those projects that may not be documented as failures, but nevertheless take much longer to roll out and deploy than originally planned because of the need to perform a major rewrite, re-architecture, or tuning effort. Personally, I call such delayed projects failures: more often than not they could have been completed on schedule (or even faster). The single most common reason for failure is a lack of practical knowledge of the database a basic lack of understanding of the fundamental tool that is being used. The black box approach involves a conscious decision to protect the developers from the database. They are actually encouraged not to learn anything about it! In many cases, they are prevented from exploiting it. The reasons for this approach appear to be FUD-related (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). Developers have heard that databases are hard, that SQL, transactions, and data integrity are hard. The solution don t make anyone do anything hard. They treat the database as a black box and have some software tool generate all of the code. They try to insulate themselves with many layers of protection so that they don t have to touch this hard database.