• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Should DBA know to check theres no DB connections before performing a data update

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Should DBA know to check theres no DB connections before performing a data update

    Slightly wide eyed
    28
    Yes
    39.29%
    11
    No
    21.43%
    6
    No, you should tell them
    28.57%
    8
    AndyW mum is always connected
    10.71%
    3

    #2
    Why would he be expected to check something like that given that

    a) he'll need a connection to do the update
    b) a large percentage of the complexity in a database system is there because they support multiple concurrent users all of whom can update data simultaneously
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

    Comment


      #3
      Surely a DBA has to understand that if he is performing a data update, he can't have users in the system? So surely, he has to check no one is connected, before updating business data?

      Comment


        #4
        Should DBA know to check theres no DB connections before performing a data update

        select machine from v$session; ?

        Just about the only useful SQL I know!

        Comment


          #5
          Depends upon the importance/size of the date update.

          Comment


            #6
            I would have thought their knowledge any data upload fails if there is locks on tables, will mean they check for users.

            With this data, you cannot have simultaneous users accessing it.

            It's business data, so it's important. It was also on a test system.

            Gob smacked the department has been asked to provide, in a deployment note, please remember to check for locks on the database, to a DBA. Gobsmacked.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Old Hack View Post
              Surely a DBA has to understand that if he is performing a data update, he can't have users in the system?
              Why? With most database systems there are very few operations that require exclusive access. If he's just updating some application data in a table somewhere then it depends 100% on the application whether you can update that data while users are on the system or not.
              While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Old Hack View Post
                I would have thought their knowledge any data upload fails if there is locks on tables, will mean they check for users.
                Why would they know that when it isn't the case? Most DML will work just fine with other users doing stuff at the same time, that's kind of how databases work and what the locking is there for. Why would they know that your update is special if you didn't tell them? You might also want to consider why your update is special as it might be something you can design out.
                While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                Comment


                  #9
                  I get the feeling you are using words you dont really know what they mean. A data update? What? An update query, updating data?

                  Sigh.

                  Obviously trying to blame someone for doing something you dont understand. If you are so good, do it yourself next time eh?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Old Hack is correct. The DBA should have dropped all of the users first without telling them & then run the update.
                    What happens in General, stays in General.
                    You know what they say about assumptions!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X