dbms_alert package calls dbms_lock to synchronize alert senders and receivers based on lockid generated by the name in dbms_alert_info table by a function call:
dbms_utility.get_hash_value(name, 2000000000, 2048)
which can have a high hash collision probability, and hence occasionally false UL lock contention.
For example, both 'warning_1828' and 'alarm_1828' are hashed to the same value: 2000000389.
select dbms_utility.get_hash_value(upper('warning_1828'), 2000000000, 2048) lockid_1,
dbms_utility.get_hash_value(upper('alarm_1828'), 2000000000, 2048) lockid_2
Here is a testcase.
At first create a helper function:
create or replace procedure dbms_alert_lock_collision(p_name varchar2) as
dbms_alert.waitany(l_name, l_message, l_status);
dbms_output.put_line('Received Name='||l_name||', Message='||l_message||', Status:='||to_char(l_status));
then open 4 Sqlplus sessions, perform the test steps as follows:
(1). Session-1 at T1
(2). Session-2 at T2
(3). Session-3 at T3
exec dbms_alert.signal('warning_1828', 'warning_1828_msg');
Firing signal wakes up the waiter session, which changes its state from "pipe get" (wait_class Idle)
to "enq: UL - contention" (wait_class Application).
(4). Session-4 at T4
exec dbms_alert.signal('alarm_1828', 'alarm_1828_msg');
(5). Session-3 at T5, wait Session-4 returns (this can take up to 32 seconds), then:
even Session-3 committed, Session-1 is still blocked by 'UL'lock. You can see it by:
select * from v$lock where type = 'UL';
select * from v$wait_chains;
(6). Session-4 at T6
Session-4's commit de-locks both Session-1 and Session-2.
If Session-3 at T5 commits before Session-4 at T4 returns, the commit of Session-3 at T5 can probably de-lock Session-1. However the behavior is dependent on the UL lock time sequence.
When signal is sent by the signalling session, but before commit, dbms_alert.waitany requests a UL lock with a timeout: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 seconds for the first 6 times, and afterwards always with timeout: 32 seconds.
If Session-4 at T4 waits less than 32 seconds, it can be blocked by Session-1 at T1. In this case, Session-3 holds S_MODE(4) lock and blocks Session-1's SX_MODE(3) lock Request, and Session-1's SX_MODE(3) lock Request blocks Session-4's S_MODE(4) lock Request (Session-4 is queued after Session-1). When Session-1 renews its lock request after maximum 32 seconds, Session-4 got its S_MODE(4) lock. And then both Session-3 and Session-4 hold S_MODE(4) lock, whereas both Session-1 and Session-2 are waiting SX_MODE(3) lock. Therefore when Session-3 at T5 commits (and hence release its S_MODE(4) lock), Session-4 is still blocking Session-1 and Session-2.
Following query can help to detect the hash collision names:
select lockid, count(*) cnt, listagg(name, '; ') within group (order by name)
select name, dbms_utility.get_hash_value(upper(name), 2000000000, 2048) lockid
from (select distinct name from sys.dbms_alert_info) v
group by lockid
having count(*) > 1
order by cnt desc;
If there are more than 100 waiting sessions like Session-1 and Session-2, the system can be disturbed by the heavy UNDO activities. Here the query to monitor them:
select n.name, s.sid, s.value
from v$statname n, v$sesstat s
where s.statistic# = n.statistic#
and name in ('data blocks consistent reads - undo records applied'
,'rollback changes - undo records applied')
By the way, in 14 May 2013, a first rank result on twin prime conjecture was reported: "Bounded gaps between primes".