Return-Path: 
 <users-return-8807-apmail-openjpa-users-archive=openjpa.apache.org@openjpa.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 97856 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2011 17:35:45 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Apr 2011 17:35:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 91110 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2011 17:35:45 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-users-archive@openjpa.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91078 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2011 17:35:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@openjpa.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@openjpa.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@openjpa.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.openjpa.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@openjpa.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91070 invoked by uid 99); 14 Apr 2011 17:35:45 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:35:45 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL,URI_HEX
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of michael.d.dick@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.174 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.160.174] (HELO mail-gy0-f174.google.com)
 (209.85.160.174)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:35:39 +0000
Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10so718064gyd.33
        for <users@openjpa.apache.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=vBy+OxNnhBv8W/xKqBIWpSSREA38bKHUUoBnBpvjG04=;
        b=x+Gu2czGyLeCr4GdJAbbADhc5lmLJVNN4eNYPuyEInL9oG/HnbkJhgxN+HnA9ANK6R
         aVN3bDq6Gupd00iaGcnmbteyfLENvmV0cu/RDiez8mD8Dn5YEY3xWw4/ckbyHmCu2yBj
         fLIg98qMjeHe6zU4sv2UKHZCS1OF5DSkRFbh4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=oEMt7eBOXjrgmImiSkbTmAOQwhrAQhY25SgC3hDoet/6tPxlNBQNBkPecKWpwZQaJI
         R62UjYgdY/ot0TTwdHXsONoK6IkjF6MrgidM1GZdt6jf7YqkROMOJx0rIubLz31dX7RC
         PzG1431c6vL2OU+M4XL31aO0rXzokbcA6a1mg=
Received: by 10.90.149.16 with SMTP id w16mr1826803agd.138.1302802519079; Thu,
 14 Apr 2011 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.192.17 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1302800775729-6273590.post@n2.nabble.com>
References: <1302654019826-6267241.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <BANLkTikh++3=p8So99rRspM6-qLBkOiO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1302706892785-6269353.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <BANLkTi=eLqxPcr8FX6nWjZ0QJEmFXy+tCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1302793122555-6273135.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <1302800775729-6273590.post@n2.nabble.com>
From: Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:34:59 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kZ-7h=QmY3J8jNyZOJ8ATQxSpYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: @Version for sqlserver "timpstamp" datatype
To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Cc: chintan4181 <chintan4181@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361e89d45cbb8804a0e45912

--0016361e89d45cbb8804a0e45912
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Chintan,

We're getting a LockTimeoutException from SQLServer, which is why you're
seeing a different exception.

OpenJPA handles locking on SQLServer a little differently from other
databases. Instead of a FOR UPDATE clause we obtain a table lock.

It would be most helpful if you could enable logging for SQL and JDBC :
<property name="openjpa.Log" value="SQL=TRACE,JDBC=TRACE"/>

In the trace file look for an instance of "WITH (UPDLOCK)" . If that's
present, OpenJPA has locked the table (e.g. pessimistic locking). If it
isn't found in the trace then it may be a case of implicit locking due to
your isolation level.

Providing your persistence.xml (pastebin if possible) may be a big help in
either case.

-mike

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM, chintan4181 <chintan4181@gmail.com> wrote:

> Few more details: Loan object has one-to-one relation with other object and
> i
> have already queried parent object which contains loan object.
>
> so Parent p = em.find(Parent.class, pId);
> Loan loan = p.getLoan();
>
> //setting loan values
>
> //lock loan object with optimistic lock
> //persist it.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/Version-for-sqlserver-timpstamp-datatype-tp6267241p6273590.html
> Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--0016361e89d45cbb8804a0e45912--