Search Results

Search found 2 results on 1 pages for 'poijoi'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Unable to delete oldest table partition - Oracle 11g

    - by poijoi
    Hi, I'm using the 11g interval partitioning feature in one of my tables. I set it up to create 1 day partitions on a timestamp field and created a job to delete data 3 months old. When I try to delete the oldest partition I get the following error: ORA-14758: Last partition in the range section cannot be dropped I would have thought that "Last" refers to the newest partition and not the oldest. How should I interpret this error? Is there something wrong with my partitions or should I in fact keep the oldest partition there at all time? Thanks in advance, PJ

    Read the article

  • Message driven bean not responding until client method is complete

    - by poijoi
    Hi, I have a MDB deployed on Jboss 4.2.2 and a client on the same server that produces messages and expects a reply from the MDB via a temporary queue created before the message is sent. When I run the client, I see that it creates the message, puts it in the queue and waits for the reply (no problem so far) ... but when I check in the logs I see that the timeout is reached and no response is received. When the timeout occurs and the client's method is complete the MDB starts processing the message that should have been processed the moment the client put it in the queue. As a consequence of this timing issue, when the MDB tries to reply to the temp queue, it fails since the client is already gone. If I run the same client from a remote server, I have no problem... The MDB picks up the message from the queue right away and the client receives its response right after the processing is complete. I'm using container managed transactions. I suspect it has something to do with that... I think the client's "send message/receive reply" might be all be considered a transaction before it commits to put the message in the queue... but I'm not sure if this is correct. If this is the case, why did I not see the same behavior from the remote client? is client managed transaction the default setting and that's what my remote server was using? Any idea how to fix this? Thanks in advance! PJ

    Read the article

1