Search Results

Search found 1137 results on 46 pages for 'optimistic locking'.

Page 10/46 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • FileStream to save file then immediately unlock in C# ?

    - by aron
    Hello, I have this code that saves a pdf file. FileStream fs = new FileStream(SaveLocation, FileMode.Create); fs.Write(result.DocumentBytes, 0, result.DocumentBytes.Length); fs.Flush(); fs.Close(); It works fine. However sometimes it does not release the lock right away and that causes file locking exceptions with functions run after this one run. Is there a ideal way to release the file lock right after the fs.Close() thanks!

    Read the article

  • ZooKeeper and RabbitMQ/Qpid together - overkill or a good combination?

    - by Chris Sears
    Greetings, I'm evaluating some components for a multi-data center distributed system. We're going to be using message queues (via either RabbitMQ or Qpid) so agents can make asynchronous requests to other agents without worrying about addressing, routing, load balancing or retransmission. In many cases, the agents will be interacting with components that were not designed for highly concurrent access, so locking and cross-agent coordination will be needed to avoid race conditions. Also, we'd like the system to automatically respond to agent or data center failures. With the above use cases in mind, ZooKeeper seemed like it might be a good fit. But I'm wondering if trying to use both ZK and message queuing is overkill. It seems like what Zookeeper does could be accomplished by my own cluster manager using AMQP messaging, but that would be hard to get really right. On the other hand, I've seen some examples where ZooKeeper was used to implement message queuing, but I think RabbitMQ/Qpid are a more natural fit for that. Has anyone out there used a combination like this? Thanks in advance, -Chris

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to lock a static variable in a non-static class?

    - by Dario Solera
    I've got a class that manages a shared resource. Now, since access to the resource depends on many parameters, this class is instantiated and disposed several times during the normal execution of the program. The shared resource does not support concurrency, so some kind of locking is needed. The first thing that came into my mind is having a static instance in the class, and acquire locks on it, like this: // This thing is static! static readonly object MyLock = new object(); // This thing is NOT static! MyResource _resource = ...; public DoSomeWork() { lock(MyLock) { _resource.Access(); } } Does that make sense, or would you use another approach?

    Read the article

  • Are we asking too much of transactional memory?

    - by Carl Seleborg
    I've been reading up a lot about transactional memory lately. There is a bit of hype around TM, so a lot of people are enthusiastic about it, and it does provide solutions for painful problems with locking, but you regularly also see complaints: You can't do I/O You have to write your atomic sections so they can run several times (be careful with your local variables!) Software transactional memory offers poor performance [Insert your pet peeve here] I understand these concerns: more often than not, you find articles about STMs that only run on some particular hardware that supports some really nifty atomic operation (like LL/SC), or it has to be supported by some imaginary compiler, or it requires that all accesses to memory be transactional, it introduces type constraints monad-style, etc. And above all: these are real problems. This has lead me to ask myself: what speaks against local use of transactional memory as a replacement for locks? Would this already bring enough value, or must transactional memory be used all over the place if used at all?

    Read the article

  • Must all Concurrent Data Store (CDB) locks be explicitly released when closing a Berkeley DB?

    - by Steve Emmerson
    I have an application that comprises multiple processes each accessing a single Berkeley DB Concurrent Data Store (CDB) database. Each process is single-threaded and does no explicit locking of the database. When each process terminates normally, it calls DB-close() and DB_ENV-close(). When all processes have terminated, there should be no locks on the database. Episodically, however, the database behaves as if some process was holding a write-lock on it even though all processes have terminated normally. Does each process need to explicitly release all locks before calling DB_ENV-close()? If so, how does the process obtain the "locker" parameter for the call to DB_ENV-loc_vec()?

    Read the article

  • How can two threads access a common array of buffers with minimal blocking ? (c#)

    - by Jelly Amma
    Hello, I'm working on an image processing application where I have two threads on top of my main thread: 1 - CameraThread that captures images from the webcam and writes them into a buffer 2 - ImageProcessingThread that takes the latest image from that buffer for filtering. The reason why this is multithreaded is because speed is critical and I need to have CameraThread to keep grabbing pictures and making the latest capture ready to pick up by ImageProcessingThread while it's still processing the previous image. My problem is about finding a fast and thread-safe way to access that common buffer and I've figured that, ideally, it should be a triple buffer (image[3]) so that if ImageProcessingThread is slow, then CameraThread can keep on writing on the two other images and vice versa. What sort of locking mechanism would be the most appropriate for this to be thread-safe ? I looked at the lock statement but it seems like it would make a thread block-waiting for another one to be finished and that would be against the point of triple buffering. Thanks in advance for any idea or advice. J.

    Read the article

  • Lock thread using somthing other than a object

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

    Read the article

  • Generating a set of files containing dumps of individual tables in a way that guarantees database co

    - by intuited
    I'd like to dump a MySQL database in such a way that a file is created for the definition of each table, and another file is created for the data in each table. I'd like this to be done in a way that guarantees database integrity by locking the entire database for the duration of the dump. What is the best way to do this? Similarly, what's the best way to lock the database while restoring a set of these dump files? edit I can't assume that mysql will have permission to write to files.

    Read the article

  • Mixing synchronized() with ReentrantLock.lock()

    - by yarvin
    In Java, do ReentrantLock.lock() and ReetrantLock.unlock() use the same locking mechanism as synchronized()? My guess is "No," but I'm hoping to be wrong. Example: Imagine that Thread 1 and Thread 2 both have access to: ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock(); Thread 1 runs: synchronized (lock) { // blah } Thread 2 runs: lock.lock(); try { // blah } finally { lock.unlock(); } Assume Thread 1 reaches its part first, then Thread 2 before Thread 1 is finished: will Thread 2 wait for Thread 1 to leave the synchronized() block, or will it go ahead and run?

    Read the article

  • Mysql SELECT FOR UPDATE - strange issue

    - by Michal Fronczyk
    Hi, I have a strange issue (at least for me :)) with the MySQL's locking facility. I have a table: Create Table: CREATE TABLE test ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=13 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 With this data: +----+ | id | +----+ | 3 | | 4 | | 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | | 10 | | 11 | | 12 | +----+ Now I have 2 clients with these commands executed at the beginning: set autocommit=0; set session transaction isolation level serializable; begin; Now the most interesting part. The first client executes this query: (makes an intent to insert a row with id equal to 9) SELECT * from test where id = 9 FOR UPDATE; Empty set (0.00 sec) Then the second client does the same: SELECT * from test where id = 9 FOR UPDATE; Empty set (0.00 sec) My question is: Why the second client does not block ? An exclusive gap lock should have been set by the first query because FOR UPDATE have been used and the second client should block. If I am wrong, could somebody tell me how to do it correctly ? The MySql version I use is: 5.1.37-1ubuntu5.1 Thanks, Michal

    Read the article

  • Nature of Lock is child table while deletion(sql server)

    - by Mubashar Ahmad
    Dear Devs From couple of days i am thinking of a following scenario Consider I have 2 tables with parent child relationship of kind one-to-many. On removal of parent row i have to delete the rows in child those are related to parents. simple right? i have to make a transaction scope to do above operation i can do this as following; (its psuedo code but i am doing this in c# code using odbc connection and database is sql server) begin transaction(read committed) Read all child where child.fk = p1 foreach(child) delete child where child.pk = cx delete parent where parent.pk = p1 commit trans OR begin transaction(read committed) delete all child where child.fk = p1 delete parent where parent.pk = p1 commit trans Now there are couple of questions in my mind Which one of above is better to use specially considering a scenario of real time system where thousands of other operations(select/update/delete/insert) are being performed within a span of seconds. does it ensure that no new child with child.fk = p1 will be added until transaction completes? If yes for 2nd question then how it ensures? do it take the table level locks or what. Is there any kind of Index locking supported by sql server if yes what it does and how it can be used. Regards Mubashar

    Read the article

  • Java FileLock for Reading and Writing

    - by bobtheowl2
    I have a process that will be called rather frequently from cron to read a file that has certain move related commands in it. My process needs to read and write to this data file - and keep it locked to prevent other processes from touching it during this time. A completely separate process can be executed by a user to (potential) write/append to this same data file. I want these two processes to play nice and only access the file one at a time. The nio FileLock seemed to be what I needed (short of writing my own semaphore type files), but I'm having trouble locking it for reading. I can lock and write just fine, but when attempting to create lock when reading I get a NonWritableChannelException. Is it even possible to lock a file for reading? Seems like a RandomAccessFile is closer to what I need, but I don't see how to implement that. Here is the code that fails: FileInputStream fin = new FileInputStream(f); FileLock fl = fin.getChannel().tryLock(); if(fl != null) { System.out.println("Locked File"); BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(fin)); System.out.println(in.readLine()); ... The exception is thrown on the FileLock line. java.nio.channels.NonWritableChannelException at sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.tryLock(Unknown Source) at java.nio.channels.FileChannel.tryLock(Unknown Source) at Mover.run(Mover.java:74) at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source) Looking at the JavaDocs, it says Unchecked exception thrown when an attempt is made to write to a channel that was not originally opened for writing. But I don't necessarily need to write to it. When I try creating a FileOutpuStream, etc. for writing purposes it is happy until I try to open a FileInputStream on the same file.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 Running trigger after Insert, Update locks original table

    - by Polity
    Hi Folks, I have a serious performance problem. I have a database with (related to this problem), 2 tables. 1 Table contains strings with some global information. The second table contains the string stripped down to each individual word. So the string is like indexed in the second table, word by word. The validity of the data in the second table is of less important then the validity of the data in the first table. Since the first table can grow like towards 1*10^6 records and the second table having an average of like 10 words for 1 string can grow like 1*10^7 records, i use a nolock in order to read the second this leaves me free for inserting new records without locking it (Expect many reads on both tables). I have a script which keeps on adding and updating rows to the first table in a MERGE statement. On average, the data beeing merged are like 20 strings a time and the scripts runs like ones every 5 seconds. On the first table, i have a trigger which is beeing invoked on a Insert or Update, which takes the newly inserted or updated data and calls a stored procedure on it which makes sure the data is indexed in the second table. (This takes some significant time). The problem is that when having the trigger disbaled, Reading the first table happens in a few ms. However, when enabling the trigger and your in bad luck of trying to read the first table while this is beeing updated, Our webserver gives you a timeout after 10 seconds (which is way to long anyways). I can quess from this part that when running the trigger, the first table is kept (partially) in a lock untill the trigger is completed. What do you think, if i'm right, is there a easy way around this? Thanks in advance! Cheers, Koen

    Read the article

  • SQL Server lock/hang issue

    - by mattwoberts
    Hi, I'm using SQL Server 2008 on Windows Server 2008 R2, all sp'd up. I'm getting occasional issues with SQL Server hanging with the CPU usage on 100% on our live server. It seems all the wait time on SQL Sever when this happens is given to SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD. Here is the Stored Proc that causes the hang. I've added the "WITH (NOLOCK)" in an attempt to fix what seems to be a locking issue. ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[MostPopularRead] AS BEGIN SET NOCOUNT ON; SELECT c.ForeignId , ct.ContentSource as ContentSource , sum(ch.HitCount * hw.Weight) as Popularity , (sum(ch.HitCount * hw.Weight) * 100) / @Total as Percent , @Total as TotalHits from ContentHit ch WITH (NOLOCK) join [Content] c WITH (NOLOCK) on ch.ContentId = c.ContentId join HitWeight hw WITH (NOLOCK) on ch.HitWeightId = hw.HitWeightId join ContentType ct WITH (NOLOCK) on c.ContentTypeId = ct.ContentTypeId where ch.CreatedDate between @Then and @Now group by c.ForeignId , ct.ContentSource order by sum(ch.HitCount * hw.HitWeightMultiplier) desc END The stored proc reads from the table "ContentHit", which is a table that tracks when content on the site is clicked (it gets hit quite frequently - anything from 4 to 20 hits a minute). So its pretty clear that this table is the source of the problem. There is a stored proc that is called to add hit tracks to the ContentHit table, its pretty trivial, it just builds up a string from the params passed in, which involves a few selects from some lookup tables, followed by the main insert: BEGIN TRAN insert into [ContentHit] (ContentId, HitCount, HitWeightId, ContentHitComment) values (@ContentId, isnull(@HitCount,1), isnull(@HitWeightId,1), @ContentHitComment) COMMIT TRAN The ContentHit table has a clustered index on its ID column, and I've added another index on CreatedDate since that is used in the select. When I profile the issue, I see the Stored proc executes for exactly 30 seconds, then the SQL timeout exception occurs. If it makes a difference the web application using it is ASP.NET, and I'm using Subsonic (3) to execute these stored procs. Can someone please advise how best I can solve this problem? I don't care about reading dirty data... Thanks

    Read the article

  • Rails running multiple delayed_job - lock tables

    - by pepernik
    Hey. I use delayed_job for background processing. I have 8 CPU server, MySQL and I start 7 delayed_job processes RAILS_ENV=production script/delayed_job -n 7 start Q1: I'm wondering is it possible that 2 or more delayed_job processes start processing the same process (the same record-row in the database delayed_jobs). I checked the code of the delayed_job plugin but can not find the lock directive in a way it should be. I think each process should lock the database table before executing an UPDATE on lock_by column. They lock the record simply by updating the locked_by field (UPDATE delayed_jobs SET locked_by...). Is that really enough? No locking needed? Why? I know that UPDATE has higher priority than SELECT but I think this does not have the effect in this case. My understanding of the multy-threaded situation is: Process1: Get waiting job X. [OK] Process2: Get waiting jobs X. [OK] Process1: Update locked_by field. [OK] Process2: Update locked_by field. [OK] Process1: Get waiting job X. [Already processed] Process2: Get waiting jobs X. [Already processed] I think in some cases more jobs can get the same information and can start processing the same process. Q2: Is 7 delayed_jobs a good number for 8CPU server? Why yes/not. Thx 10x!

    Read the article

  • Correct way to generate order numbers in SQL Server

    - by Anton Gogolev
    This question certainly applies to a much broader scope, but here it is. I have a basic ecommerce app, where users can, naturally enough, place orders. Said orders need to have a unique number, which I'm trying to generate right now. Each order is Vendor-specific. Basically, I have an OrderNumberInfo (VendorID, OrderNumber) table. Now whenever a customer places an order I need to increment OrderNumber for a particuar Vendor and return that value. Naturally, I don't want other processes to interfere with me, so I need to exclusively lock this row somehow: begin tranaction declare @n int select @n = OrderNumber from OrderNumberInfo where VendorID = @vendorID update OrderNumberInfo set OrderNumber = @n + 1 where OrderNumber = @n and VendorID = @vendorID commit transaction Now, I've read about select ... with (updlock rowlock), pessimistic locking, etc., but just cannot fit all this in a coherent picture: How do these hints play with SQL Server 2008s' snapshot isolation? Do they perform row-level, page-level or even table-level locks? How does this tolerate multiple users trying to generate numbers for a single Vendor? What isolation levels are appropriate here? And generally - what is the way to do such things?

    Read the article

  • MFC/CCriticalSection: Simple lock situation hangs

    - by raph.amiard
    I have to program a simple threaded program with MFC/C++ for a uni assignment. I have a simple scenario in wich i have a worked thread which executes a function along the lines of : UINT createSchedules(LPVOID param) { genProgThreadVal* v = (genProgThreadVal*) param; // v->searcherLock is of type CcriticalSection* while(1) { if(v->searcherLock->Lock()) { //do the stuff, access shared object , exit clause etc.. v->searcherLock->Unlock(); } } PostMessage(v->hwnd, WM_USER_THREAD_FINISHED , 0,0); delete v; return 0; } In my main UI class, i have a CListControl that i want to be able to access the shared object (of type std::List). Hence the locking stuff. So this CList has an handler function looking like this : void Ccreationprogramme::OnLvnItemchangedList5(NMHDR *pNMHDR, LRESULT *pResult) { LPNMLISTVIEW pNMLV = reinterpret_cast<LPNMLISTVIEW>(pNMHDR); if((pNMLV->uChanged & LVIF_STATE) && (pNMLV->uNewState & LVNI_SELECTED)) { searcherLock.Lock(); // do the stuff on shared object searcherLock.Unlock(); // do some more stuff } *pResult = 0; } The searcherLock in both function is the same object. The worker thread function is passed a pointer to the CCriticalSection object, which is a member of my dialog class. Everything works but, as soon as i do click on my list, and so triggers the handler function, the whole program hangs indefinitely.I tried using a Cmutex. I tried using a CSingleLock wrapping over the critical section object, and none of this has worked. What am i missing ?

    Read the article

  • C#, Can I check on a lock without trying to acquire it?

    - by Biff MaGriff
    Hello, I have a lock in my c# web app that prevents users from running the update script once it has started. I was thinking I would put a notification in my master page to let the user know that the data isn't all there yet. Currently I do my locking like so. protected void butRefreshData_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(UpdateDatabase)); t.Start(this); //sleep for a bit to ensure that javascript has a chance to get rendered Thread.Sleep(100); } public static void UpdateDatabase(object con) { if (Monitor.TryEnter(myLock)) { Updater.RepopulateDatabase(); Monitor.Exit(myLock); } else { Common.RegisterStartupScript(con, AlreadyLockedJavaScript); } } And I do not want to do if(Monitor.TryEnter(myLock)) Monitor.Exit(myLock); else //show processing labal As I imagine there is a slight possibility that it might display the notification when it isn't actually running. Is there an alternative I can use? Edit: Hi Everyone, thanks a lot for your suggestions! Unfortunately I couldn't quite get them to work... However I combined the ideas on 2 answers and came up with my own solution.

    Read the article

  • How to efficiently use LOCK_ESCALATION mssql 2008

    - by Avias
    I'm currently having troubles with frequent deadlocks with a specific user table in MS SQL 2008. Here are some facts about this particular table: Has a large amount of rows (1 to 2 million) All the indexes used on this table only has "use row lock" ticked on its option rows are frequently updated by multiple transactions but are unique (e.g. probably a thousand or more update statements are executed to different unique rows every hour) the table does not use partitions. Upon checking the table on sys.tables, I found that the lock_escalation is set to TABLE I'm very tempted to turn the lock_escalation for this table to DISABLE but I'm not really sure what side effect this would incur. From What I understand, using DISABLE will minimize escalating locks to TABLE level which if combined with the row lock settings of the indexes should theoretically minimize the deadlocks I am encountering.. From what I have read in Determining threshold for lock escalation it seems that locking automatically escalates when a single transaction fetches 5000 rows.. What does a single transaction mean in this sense? A single session/connection getting 5000 rows thru individual update/select statements? Or is it a single sql update/select statement that fetches 5000 or more rows? Any insight is appreciated, btw, n00b DBA here Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to salvage SQL server 2008 query from KILLED/ROLLBACK state?

    - by littlegreen
    I have a stored procedure that inserts batches of millions of rows, emerging from a certain query, into an SQL database. It has one parameter selecting the batch; when this parameter is omitted, it will gather a list of batches and recursively call itself, in order to iterate over batches. In (pseudo-)code, it looks something like this: CREATE PROCEDURE spProcedure AS BEGIN IF @code = 0 BEGIN ... WHILE @@Fetch_Status=0 BEGIN EXEC spProcedure @code FETCH NEXT ... INTO @code END END ELSE BEGIN -- Disable indexes ... INSERT INTO table SELECT (...) -- Enable indexes ... Now it can happen that this procedure is slow, for whatever reason: it can't get a lock, one of the indexes it uses is misdefined or disabled. In that case, I want to be able kill the procedure, truncate and recreate the resulting table, and try again. However, when I try and kill the procedure, the process frequently oozes into a KILLED/ROLLBACK state from which there seems to be no return. From Google I have learned to do an sp_lock, find the spid, and then kill it with KILL <spid>. But when I try to kill it, it tells me SPID 75: transaction rollback in progress. Estimated rollback completion: 0%. Estimated time remaining: 554 seconds. I did find a forum message hinting that another spid should be killed before the other one can start a rollback. But that didn't work for me either, plus I do not understand, why that would be the case... could it be because I am recursively calling my own stored procedure? (But it should be having the same spid, right?) In any case, my process is just sitting there, being dead, not responding to kills, and locking the table. This is very frustrating, as I want to go on developing my queries, not waiting hours on my server sitting dead while pretending to be finishing a supposed rollback. Is there some way in which I can tell the server not to store any rollback information for my query? Or not to allow any other queries to interfere with the rollback, so that it will not take so long? Or how to rewrite my query in a better way, or how kill the process successfully without restarting the server?

    Read the article

  • How to salvage SQL server 2008 query from KILLED/ROLLBACK state without waiting half a day?

    - by littlegreen
    I have a stored procedure that inserts batches of millions of rows, emerging from a certain query, into an SQL database. It has one parameter selecting the batch; when this parameter is omitted, it will gather a list of batches and recursively call itself, in order to iterate over batches. In (pseudo-)code, it looks something like this: CREATE PROCEDURE spProcedure AS BEGIN IF @code = 0 BEGIN ... WHILE @@Fetch_Status=0 BEGIN EXEC spProcedure @code FETCH NEXT ... INTO @code END END ELSE BEGIN -- Disable indexes ... INSERT INTO table SELECT (...) -- Enable indexes ... Now it can happen that this procedure is slow, for whatever reason: it can't get a lock, one of the indexes it uses is misdefined or disabled. In that case, I want to be able kill the procedure, truncate and recreate the resulting table, and try again. However, when I try and kill the procedure, the process frequently oozes into a KILLED/ROLLBACK state from which there seems to be no return. From Google I have learned to do an sp_lock, find the spid, and then kill it with KILL <spid>. But when I try to kill it, it tells me SPID 75: transaction rollback in progress. Estimated rollback completion: 0%. Estimated time remaining: 554 seconds. I did find a forum message hinting that another spid should be killed before the other one can start a rollback. But that didn't work for me either, plus I do not understand, why that would be the case... could it be because I am recursively calling my own stored procedure? (But it should be having the same spid, right?) In any case, my process is just sitting there, being dead, not responding to kills, and locking the table. This is very frustrating, as I want to go on developing my queries, not waiting hours on my server sitting dead while pretending to be finishing a supposed rollback. Is there some way in which I can tell the server not to store any rollback information for my query? Or not to allow any other queries to interfere with the rollback, so that it will not take so long? Or how to rewrite my query in a better way, or how kill the process successfully without restarting the server?

    Read the article

  • Java: Making concurrent MySQL queries from multiple clients synchronised

    - by Misha Gale
    I work at a gaming cybercafe, and we've got a system here (smartlaunch) which keeps track of game licenses. I've written a program which interfaces with this system (actually, with it's backend MySQL database). The program is meant to be run on a client PC and (1) query the database to select an unused license from the pool available, then (2) mark this license as in use by the client PC. The problem is, I've got a concurrency bug. The program is meant to be launched simultaneously on multiple machines, and when this happens, some machines often try and acquire the same license. I think that this is because steps (1) and (2) are not synchronised, i.e. one program determines that license #5 is available and selects it, but before it can mark #5 as in use another copy of the program on another PC tries to grab that same license. I've tried to solve this problem by using transactions and table locking, but it doesn't seem to make any difference - Am I doing this right? Here follows the code in question: public LicenseKey Acquire() throws SmartLaunchException, SQLException { Connection conn = SmartLaunchDB.getConnection(); int PCID = SmartLaunchDB.getCurrentPCID(); conn.createStatement().execute("LOCK TABLE `licensekeys` WRITE"); String sql = "SELECT * FROM `licensekeys` WHERE `InUseByPC` = 0 AND LicenseSetupID = ? ORDER BY `ID` DESC LIMIT 1"; PreparedStatement statement = conn.prepareStatement(sql); statement.setInt(1, this.id); ResultSet results = statement.executeQuery(); if (results.next()) { int licenseID = results.getInt("ID"); sql = "UPDATE `licensekeys` SET `InUseByPC` = ? WHERE `ID` = ?"; statement = conn.prepareStatement(sql); statement.setInt(1, PCID); statement.setInt(2, licenseID); statement.executeUpdate(); statement.close(); conn.commit(); conn.createStatement().execute("UNLOCK TABLES"); return new LicenseKey(results.getInt("ID"), this, results.getString("LicenseKey"), results.getInt("LicenseKeyType")); } else { throw new SmartLaunchException("All licenses of type " + this.name + "are in use"); } }

    Read the article

  • How to write my own global lock / unlock functions for PostgreSQL

    - by rafalmag
    I have postgresql (in perlu) function getTravelTime(integer, timestamp), which tries to select data for specified ID and timestamp. If there are no data or if data is old, it downloads them from external server (downloading time ~300ms). Multiple process use this database and this function. There is an error when two process do not find data and download them and try to do an insert to travel_time table (id and timestamp pair have to be unique). I thought about locks. Locking whole table would block all processes and allow only one to proceed. I need to lock only on id and timestamp. pg_advisory_lock seems to lock only in "current session". But my processes uses their own sessions. I tried to write my own lock/unlock functions. Am I doing it right? I use active waiting, how can I omit this? Maybe there is a way to use pg_advisory_lock() as global lock? My code: CREATE TABLE travel_time_locks ( id_key integer NOT NULL, time_key timestamp without time zone NOT NULL, UNIQUE (id_key, time_key) ); ------------ -- Function: mylock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS mylock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT mylock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global lock similar to pg_advisory_lock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mylock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS void AS $BODY$ DECLARE rows int; BEGIN LOOP BEGIN -- active waiting here !!!! :( INSERT INTO travel_time_locks (id_key, time_key) VALUES (id_input, time_input); EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN CONTINUE; END; EXIT; END LOOP; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1; ------------ -- Function: myunlock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS myunlock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT myunlock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global unlock similar to pg_advisory_unlock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myunlock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS integer AS $BODY$ DECLARE BEGIN DELETE FROM ONLY travel_time_locks WHERE id_key=id_input AND time_key=time_input; RETURN 1; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1;

    Read the article

  • A deadlock was detected while trying to lock variables in SSIS

    Error: 0xC001405C at SQL Log Status: A deadlock was detected while trying to lock variables "User::RowCount" for read/write access. A lock cannot be acquired after 16 attempts. The locks timed out. Have you ever considered variable locking when building your SSIS packages? I expect many people haven’t just because most of the time you never see an error like the one above. I’ll try and explain a few key concepts about variable locking and hopefully you never will see that error. First of all, what is all this variable locking all about? Put simply SSIS variables have to be locked before they can be accessed, and then of course unlocked once you have finished with them. This is baked into SSIS, presumably to reduce the risk of race conditions, but with that comes some additional overhead in that you need to be careful to avoid lock conflicts in some scenarios. The most obvious place you will come across any hint of locking (no pun intended) is the Script Task or Script Component with their ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables properties. These two properties allow you to enter lists of variables to be used within the task, or to put it another way, these lists of variables to be locked, so that they are available within the task. During the task pre-execute phase the variables and locked, you then use them during the execute phase when you code is run, and then unlocked for you during the post-execute phase. So by entering the variable names in one of the two list, the locking is taken care of for you, and you just read and write to the Dts.Variables collection that is exposed in the task for the purpose. As you can see in the image above, the variable PackageInt is specified, which means when I write the code inside that task I don’t have to worry about locking at all, as shown below. public void Main() { // Set the variable value to something new Dts.Variables["PackageInt"].Value = 199; // Raise an event so we can play in the event handler bool fireAgain = true; Dts.Events.FireInformation(0, "Script Task Code", "This is the script task raising an event.", null, 0, ref fireAgain); Dts.TaskResult = (int)ScriptResults.Success; } As you can see as well as accessing the variable, hassle free, I also raise an event. Now consider a scenario where I have an event hander as well as shown below. Now what if my event handler uses tries to use the same variable as well? Well obviously for the point of this post, it fails with the error quoted previously. The reason why is clearly illustrated if you consider the following sequence of events. Package execution starts Script Task in Control Flow starts Script Task in Control Flow locks the PackageInt variable as specified in the ReadWriteVariables property Script Task in Control Flow executes script, and the On Information event is raised The On Information event handler starts Script Task in On Information event handler starts Script Task in On Information event handler attempts to lock the PackageInt variable (for either read or write it doesn’t matter), but will fail because the variable is already locked. The problem is caused by the event handler task trying to use a variable that is already locked by the task in Control Flow. Events are always raised synchronously, therefore the task in Control Flow that is raising the event will not regain control until the event handler has completed, so we really do have un-resolvable locking conflict, better known as a deadlock. In this scenario we can easily resolve the problem by managing the variable locking explicitly in code, so no need to specify anything for the ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables properties. public void Main() { // Set the variable value to something new, with explicit lock control Variables lockedVariables = null; Dts.VariableDispenser.LockOneForWrite("PackageInt", ref lockedVariables); lockedVariables["PackageInt"].Value = 199; lockedVariables.Unlock(); // Raise an event so we can play in the event handler bool fireAgain = true; Dts.Events.FireInformation(0, "Script Task Code", "This is the script task raising an event.", null, 0, ref fireAgain); Dts.TaskResult = (int)ScriptResults.Success; } Now the package will execute successfully because the variable lock has already been released by the time the event is raised, so no conflict occurs. For those of you with a SQL Engine background this should all sound strangely familiar, and boils down to getting in and out as fast as you can to reduce the risk of lock contention, be that SQL pages or SSIS variables. Unfortunately we cannot always manage the locking ourselves. The Execute SQL Task is very often used in conjunction with variables, either to pass in parameter values or get results out. Either way the task will manage the locking for you, and will fail when it cannot lock the variables it requires. The scenario outlined above is clear cut deadlock scenario, both parties are waiting on each other, so it is un-resolvable. The mechanism used within SSIS isn’t actually that clever, and whilst the message says it is a deadlock, it really just means it tried a few times, and then gave up. The last part of the error message is actually the most accurate in terms of the failure, A lock cannot be acquired after 16 attempts. The locks timed out.  Now this may come across as a recommendation to always manage locking manually in the Script Task or Script Component yourself, but I think that would be an overreaction. It is more of a reminder to be aware that in high concurrency scenarios, especially when sharing variables across multiple objects, locking is important design consideration. Update – Make sure you don’t try and use explicit locking as well as leaving the variable names in the ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables lock lists otherwise you’ll get the deadlock error, you cannot lock a variable twice!

    Read the article

  • How to you solve the problem of implicit locking and parallel execution?

    - by Eonil
    Where the code is: function A() { lock() doSomething() unlock() } We can call A safely from multiple threads, but it never be executed in parallel . For parallel execution, we have to evade all of this code. But the problem is we never know the A is getting lock or not. If we have source code (maybe lucky case), we have to decode all code to know locking is happening or not. This sucks. But even worse is we normally have no source code. It's obvious this kind of hidden locks will become bottleneck of parallel execution even all the other parts are designed for parallel. And also, (1) With locks, execution cannot be parallel. (2) And I can't know whether the locks are used or not in any code. (3) Defensively, I can't make parallel anything! This facts drives me crazy. How do you solve this problem?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >