What does HRESULT 0x80040E38 (DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION) mean?

 
Previous Next
DB_E_NOTABLE DB_E_BADCOPY

DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION

Rowset used optimistic concurrency and the value of a column has changed since it was last read

Exact value and interpretation

DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION has the unsigned 32-bit value 2147749432 (0x80040E38) and the signed representation -2147217864. AllStat defines the result as “Rowset used optimistic concurrency and the value of a column has changed since it was last read”. In the concrete failure represented here, an optimistic rowset update detects that a compared column changed since the consumer last read the row.

The high bit is set for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, so it is a failure HRESULT rather than a success or informational status. Its facility field is 4 (FACILITY_ITF) and its low code is 3640 (0x0E38). Those bit fields place DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION in an interface-defined family, but they do not reveal the provider, object identity, method, rowset generation or command state that produced it.

OLE DB contract boundary

DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION must be interpreted against this contract: OLE DB rowsets own HROW values, fetch position, granted properties and visibility rules; row handles, bookmarks, update state and navigation capabilities remain valid only under the lifetime and generation that produced them.

Start with the current rowset instance, its granted properties and the exact row or position token used by the consumer when investigating DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION. Preserve DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION before ADO, ATL, .NET, a database abstraction layer or an application exception replaces it with a generic message; the exact interface and method matter because one OLE DB object can expose several contracts with different preconditions.

Evidence to collect before changing the system

A useful DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION record includes provider CLSID and version, process architecture, interface and method, COM apartment and thread, object correlation ID, transaction state, and the first preceding HRESULT. When DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION involves row values, bookmarks, keys and query parameters, record types, lengths, hashes or redacted identifiers instead of secrets or full business data.

  • Evidence 1 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: the row key and compared-column set.
  • Evidence 2 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: original, current and proposed value hashes.
  • Evidence 3 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: transaction isolation and row-version metadata.

Specific conditions that produce this result

  • Cause 1 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: another transaction updated the row.
  • Cause 2 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: a trigger or server process changed a concurrency column.
  • Cause 3 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: the consumer submits stale original values after a long edit interval.

Diagnostic sequence

  1. Capture DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION immediately at the native OLE DB return and obtain the current OLE DB error object before another COM call replaces thread error information.
  2. Identify the exact stage for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: an optimistic rowset update detects that a compared column changed since the consumer last read the row.
  3. For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, compare the live command, rowset, accessor or schema state with the metadata and properties actually granted by the provider.
  4. For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, inspect per-binding, per-property, per-row or per-record statuses whenever the method supplies them; the aggregate result may not identify the rejected element.
  5. For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, reproduce the issue with the smallest command, rowset or definition operation that preserves the same contract boundary.
  6. For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, apply one evidence-backed correction, then verify that the operation succeeds and does not merely change into a nearby HRESULT.

Retry and recovery policy

Retry rule for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: retry only after refreshing the row and deciding how to reconcile the competing update. A safe DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION retry must use a changed input, object generation, provider capability or state transition. If the call returning DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION could have created, updated, deleted or copied data, determine partial completion before replaying it.

For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, use bounded retries and preserve cancellation. For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, configuration and contract failures should normally fail fast; concurrency, resource or transient state failures may justify retry only after their stated precondition changes.

Corrective actions

  • Action 1 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: reread the row and present a deliberate merge or conflict decision.
  • Action 2 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: use row-version columns when the provider supports them.
  • Action 3 for DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION: avoid blind retries that overwrite concurrent changes.

Practical incident

Two users edit the same record and the second submits original values from an older row version; reloading and merging prevents repeated DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION. The diagnostic value comes from retaining DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION together with the failing interface and object state, not from reducing every provider result to “database error”.

Implementation guidance

Code handling DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION should release OLE DB resources in ownership order, preserve every provider error record, and log granted properties rather than only requested properties. When handling DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, handles such as HACCESSOR, HROW, HCHAPTER and provider-specific region tokens must never be treated as portable integers across object lifetimes.

When DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION crosses an abstraction boundary, attach a stable correlation ID and structured fields for the native HRESULT, provider source, interface IID, method, object generation and operation phase. For DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION, do not log passwords, access tokens, complete SQL text or unrestricted row values merely to make the event easier to search.

Difference from related HRESULT values

DB_E_INTEGRITYVIOLATION reports a constraint failure, while DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION reports that optimistic comparison detected a concurrent change. Keep these outcomes separate in telemetry and user-facing remediation because DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION requires a different next action.

Official Microsoft references

Looking for a different code? Search another status or error code.