| Previous | Next |
| DB_E_NOTABLE | DB_E_BADCOPY |
DB_E_CONCURRENCYVIOLATION
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 it, 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 this result 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
This result 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 this result. Preserve it 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 this result 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 it 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 it: the row key and compared-column set.
- Evidence 2 for it: original, current and proposed value hashes.
- Evidence 3 for it: transaction isolation and row-version metadata.
Specific conditions that produce it
- Cause 1 for it: another transaction updated the row.
- Cause 2 for it: a trigger or server process changed a concurrency column.
- Cause 3 for it: the consumer submits stale original values after a long edit interval.
Diagnostic sequence
- Capture it immediately at the native OLE DB return and obtain the current OLE DB error object before another COM call replaces thread error information.
- Identify the exact stage for it: an optimistic rowset update detects that a compared column changed since the consumer last read the row.
- compare the live command, rowset, accessor or schema state with the metadata and properties actually granted by the provider.
- 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.
- reproduce the issue with the smallest command, rowset or definition operation that preserves the same contract boundary.
- 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 it: retry only after refreshing the row and deciding how to reconcile the competing update. A safe it retry must use a changed input, object generation, provider capability or state transition. If the call returning it could have created, updated, deleted or copied data, determine partial completion before replaying it.
Use bounded retries and preserve cancellation. 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 it: reread the row and present a deliberate merge or conflict decision.
- Action 2 for it: use row-version columns when the provider supports them.
- Action 3 for it: 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 it. The diagnostic value comes from retaining it together with the failing interface and object state, not from reducing every provider result to “database error”.
Implementation guidance
Code handling it should release OLE DB resources in ownership order, preserve every provider error record, and log granted properties rather than only requested properties. When handling it, handles such as HACCESSOR, HROW, HCHAPTER and provider-specific region tokens must never be treated as portable integers across object lifetimes.
When it 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. 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 it reports that optimistic comparison detected a concurrent change. Keep these outcomes separate in telemetry and user-facing remediation because it requires a different next action.
Official Microsoft references
Looking for a different code? Search another status or error code.