Search Results

Search found 3669 results on 147 pages for 'spring transactions'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 58/147 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >

  • How to set the transaction isolation level of a

    - by Michael Wiles
    How do I set the global transaction isolation level for a postgres data source. I'm running on jboss and I'm using hibernate to connect. I know that I can set the isolation level from hibernate, does this work for Postgres? This would be by setting the hibernate.connection.isolation hibernate property to 1,2,4,8 - the various values of the relevant static fields. I'm using the org.postgresql.xa.PGXADataSource

    Read the article

  • Oracle transaction read-consistency ?

    - by trojanwarrior3000
    I have problem understanding read consistency in db(oracle). Suppose I am manger of a bank . A customer has got lock (which I dont know) and is doing some updation. Now after he has got lock I am viewing account info of the same customer and try to do some thing on it.But because of read consistency I will see data as it existed before customer got the lock. So will not that affect inputs I am getting and the decisions that I am gonna make during that period?

    Read the article

  • What does really happen when we do a BEGIN TRAN in SQL Server 2005?

    - by Misnomer
    Hi all, I came across this issue or maybe something I didn't realize but I did a Begin Tran and had some code inside it and never ran a commit or rollback as I forgot about it. That caused all many of the database queries or even just a simple select top 1000 command were just sitting on loading..? Now it probably has put some locks on the tables I guess since it did not let me query them..but I just wanted to know what exactly happened and what are the practices to be followed here ?

    Read the article

  • Question About TransactionScope in .NET

    - by peace
    using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) { int updatedRows1 = custPh.Update(cust.CustomerID, tempPh1, 0); int updatedRows2 = custPh.Update(cust.CustomerID, tempPh2, 1); int updatedRows3 = cust.Update(); if (updatedRows1 > 0 && updatedRows2 > 0 && updatedRows3 > 0) { scope.Complete(); } } Is the above TransactionScope code structured correctly? This is my first time using it so i'm trying to make as simple as i can.

    Read the article

  • How can the Three-Phase Commit Protocol (3PC) guarantee atomicity?

    - by AndiDog
    I'm currently exploring worst case scenarios of atomic commit protocols like 2PC and 3PC and am stuck at the point that I can't find out why 3PC can guarantee atomicity. That is, how does it guarantee that if cohort A commits, cohort B also commits? Here's the simplified 3PC from the Wikipedia article: Now let's assume the following case: Two cohorts participate in the transaction (A and B) Both do their work, then vote for commit Coordinator now sends precommit messages... A receives the precommit message, acknowledges, and then goes offline for a long time B doesn't receive the precommit message (whatever the reason might be) and is thus still in "uncertain" state The results: Coordinator aborts the transaction because not all precommit messages were sent and acknowledged successfully A, who is in precommit state, is still offline, thus times out and commits B aborts in any case: He either stays offline and times out (causes abort) or comes online and receives the abort command from the coordinator And there you have it: One cohort committed, another aborted. The transaction is screwed. So what am I missing here? In my understanding, if the automatic commit on timeout (in precommit state) was replaced by infinitely waiting for a coordinator command, that case should work fine.

    Read the article

  • A better way to delete a list of elements from multiple tables

    - by manyxcxi
    I know this looks like a 'please write the code' request, but some basic pointer/principles for doing this the right way should be enough to get me going. I have the following stored procedure: CREATE PROCEDURE `TAA`.`runClean` (IN idlist varchar(1000)) BEGIN DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR NOT FOUND ROLLBACK; DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR SQLEXCEPTION ROLLBACK; DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR SQLWARNING ROLLBACK; START TRANSACTION; DELETE FROM RunningReports WHERE run_id IN (idlist); DELETE FROM TMD_INDATA_INVOICE WHERE run_id IN (idlist); DELETE FROM TMD_INDATA_LINE WHERE run_id IN (idlist); DELETE FROM TMD_OUTDATA_INVOICE WHERE run_id IN (idlist); DELETE FROM TMD_OUTDATA_LINE WHERE run_id IN (idlist); DELETE FROM TMD_TEST WHERE run_id IN (idlist); DELETE FROM RunHistory WHERE id IN (idlist); COMMIT; END $$ It is called by a PHP script to clean out old run history. It is not particularly efficient as you can see and I would like to speed it up. The PHP script gathers the ids to remove from the tables with the following query: $query = "SELECT id, stop_time FROM RunHistory WHERE config_id = $configId AND save = 0 AND NOT(stop_time IS NULL) ORDER BY stop_time"; It keeps the last five run entries and deletes all the rest. So using this query to bring back all the IDs, it determines which ones to delete and keeps the 'newest' five. After gathering the IDs it sends them to the stored procedure to remove them from the associated tables. I'm not very good with SQL, but I ASSUME that using an IN statement and not joining these tables together is probably the least efficient way I can do this, but I don't know enough to ask anything but "how do I do this better?" If possible, I would like to do this all in my stored procedure using a query to gather all the IDs except for the five 'newest', then delete them. Another twist, run entries can be marked save (save = 1) and should not be deleted. The RunHistory table looks like this: CREATE TABLE `TAA`.`RunHistory` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, `start_time` datetime default NULL, `stop_time` datetime default NULL, `config_id` int(11) NOT NULL, [...] `save` tinyint(1) NOT NULL default '0', PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=0 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

    Read the article

  • JDBC transaction dead-lock solution required?

    - by user49767
    It's a scenario described my friend and challenged to find solution. He is using Oracle database and JDBC connection with read committed as transaction isolation level. In one of the transaction, he updates a record and executes selects statement and commits the transaction. when everything happening within single thread, things are fine. But when multiple requests are handled, dead-lock happens. Thread-A updates a record. Thread B updates another record. Thread-A issues select statement and waits for Thread-B's transaction to complete the commit operation. Thread-B issues select statement and waits for Thread-A's transaction to complete the commit operation. Now above causes dead-lock. Since they use command pattern, the base framework allows to issue commit only once (at the end of all the db operation), so they are unable to issue commit immediately after select statement. My argument was Thread-A supposed to select all the records which are committed and hence should not be issue. But he said that Thread-A will surely wait till Thread-B commits the record. is that true? What are all the ways, to avoid the above issue? is it possible to change isolation-level? (without changing underlying java framework) Little information about base framework, it is something similar to Struts action, their each and every request handled by one action, transaction begins before execution and commits after execution.

    Read the article

  • What sql server isolation level should I choose to prevent concurrent reads?

    - by Brian Bolton
    I have the following transaction: SQL inserts a 1 new record into a table called tbl_document SQL deletes all records matching a criteria in another table called tbl_attachment SQL inserts multiple records into the tbl_attachment Until this transaction finishes, I don't want others users to be aware of the (1) new records in tbl_document, (2) deleted records in tbl_attachment, and (3) modified records in tbl_attachment. Would Read Committed Isolation be the correct isolation level?

    Read the article

  • At which line in the following code should I commit my unit of work?

    - by Pure.Krome
    I have the following code which is in a transaction. I'm not sure where/when I should be commiting my unit of work. On purpose, I've not mentioned what type of Respoistory i'm using - eg. Linq-To-Sql, Entity Framework 4, NHibernate, etc. If someone knows where, can they please explain WHY they have said, where? (i'm trying to understand the pattern through example(s), as opposed to just getting my code to work). Here's what i've got :- using ( TransactionScope transactionScope = new TransactionScope ( TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew, new TransactionOptions { IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted } ) ) { _logEntryRepository.InsertOrUpdate(logEntry); //_unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #1 ? // Now, if this log entry was a NewConnection or an LostConnection, // then we need to make sure we update the ConnectedClients. if (logEntry.EventType == EventType.NewConnection) { _connectedClientRepository.Insert( new ConnectedClient { LogEntryId = logEntry.LogEntryId }); //_unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #2 ? } // A (PB) BanKick does _NOT_ register a lost connection, // so we need to make sure we handle those scenario's as a LostConnection. if (logEntry.EventType == EventType.LostConnection || logEntry.EventType == EventType.BanKick) { _connectedClientRepository.Delete( logEntry.ClientName, logEntry.ClientIpAndPort); //_unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #3 ? } _unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #4 ? transactionScope.Complete(); }

    Read the article

  • PostgreSQL pgdb driver raises "can't rollback" exception

    - by David Parunakian
    Hello, for some reason I'm experiencing the Operational Error with "can't rollback" message when I attempt to roll back my transaction in the following context: try: cursors[instance].execute("lock revision, app, timeout IN SHARE MODE") cursors[instance].execute("insert into app (type, active, active_revision, contents, z) values ('session', true, %s, %s, 0) returning id", (cRevision, sessionId)) sAppId = cursors[instance].fetchone()[0] cursors[instance].execute("insert into revision (app_id, type) values (%s, 'active')", (sAppId,)) cursors[instance].execute("insert into timeout (app_id, last_seen) values (%s, now())", (sAppId,)) connections[instance].commit() except pgdb.DatabaseError, e: connections[instance].rollback() return "{status: 'error', errno:4, errmsg: \"%s\"}"%(str(e).replace('\"', '\\"').replace('\n', '\\n').replace('\r', '\\r')) The driver in use is PGDB. What is fundamentally wrong here?

    Read the article

  • How to create entities in one Entity group ?

    - by Gopi
    I am building an app based on google app engine (Java) using JDO for persistence. Can someone give me an example or a point me to some code which shows persisting of multiple entities (of same type) using javax.jdo.PersistenceManager.makePersistentAll() within a transaction. Basically I need to understand how to put multiple entites in one Entity Group so that they can be saved using makePersistentAll() inside transaction.

    Read the article

  • Cannot save model due to bad transaction? Django

    - by Kenneth Love
    Trying to save a model in Django admin and I keep getting the error: Transaction managed block ended with pending COMMIT/ROLLBACK I tried restarting both the Django (1.2) and PostgreSQL (8.4) processes but nothing changed. I added "autocommit": True to my database settings but that didn't change anything either. Everything that Google has turned up has either not been answered or the answer involved not having records in the users table, which I definitely have. The model does not have a custom save method and there are no pre/post save signals tied to it. Any ideas or anything else I can provide to make answering this easier?

    Read the article

  • Django: How can I protect against concurrent modification of data base entries

    - by Ber
    If there a way to protect against concurrent modifications of the same data base entry by two or more users? It would be acceptable to show an error message to the user performing the second commit/save operation, but data should not be silently overwritten. I think locking the entry is not an option, as a user might use the "Back" button or simply close his browser, leaving the lock for ever.

    Read the article

  • Building "isolated" and "automatically updated" caches (java.util.List) in Java.

    - by Aidos
    Hi Guys, I am trying to write a framework which contains a lot of short-lived caches created from a long-living cache. These short-lived caches need to be able to return their entier contents, which is a clone from the original long-living cache. Effectively what I am trying to build is a level of transaction isolation for the short-lived caches. The user should be able to modify the contents of the short-lived cache, but changes to the long-living cache should not be propogated through (there is also a case where the changes should be pushed through, depending on the Cache type). I will do my best to try and explain: master-cache contains: [A,B,C,D,E,F] temporary-cache created with state [A,B,C,D,E,F] 1) temporary-cache adds item G: [A,B,C,D,E,F] 2) temporary-cache removes item B: [A,C,D,E,F] master-cache contains: [A,B,C,D,E,F] 3) master-cache adds items [X,Y,Z]: [A,B,C,D,E,F,X,Y,Z] temporary-cache contains: [A,C,D,E,F] Things get even harder when the values in the items can change and shouldn't always be updated (so I can't even share the underlying object instances, I need to use clones). I have implemented the simple approach of just creating a new instance of the List using the standard Collection constructor on ArrayList, however when you get out to about 200,000 items the system just runs out of memory. I know the value of 200,000 is excessive to iterate, but I am trying to stress my code a bit. I had thought that it might be able to somehow "proxy" the list, so the temporary-cache uses the master-cache, and stores all of it's changes (effectively a Memento for the change), however that quickly becomes a nightmare when you want to iterate the temporary-cache, or retrieve an item at a specific index. Also given that I want some modifications to the contents of the list to come through (depending on the type of the temporary-cache, whether it is "auto-update" or not) and I get completly out of my depth. Any pointers to techniques or data-structures or just general concepts to try and research will be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Aidos

    Read the article

  • MySQL: automatic rollback on transaction failure

    - by praksant
    Is there any way to set MySQL to rollback any transaction on first error/warning automatically? Now if everything goes well, it commits, but on failure it leaves transaction open and on another start of transaction it commits incomplete changes from failed transaction. (I'm executing queries from php, but i don't want to check in php for failure, as it would make more calls between mysql server and webserver.) Thank you

    Read the article

  • multithreading with database

    - by Darsin
    I am looking out for a strategy to utilize multithreading (probably asynchronous delegates) to do a synchronous operation. I am new to multithreading so i will outline my scenario first. This synchronous operation right now is done for one set of data (portfolio) based on the the parameters provided. The (psudeo-code) implementation is given below: public DataSet DoTests(int fundId, DateTime portfolioDate) { // Get test results for the portfolio // Call the database adapter method, which in turn is a stored procedure, // which in turns runs a series of "rule" stored procs and fills a local temp table and returns it back. DataSet resultsDataSet = GetTestResults(fundId, portfolioDate); try { // Do some local processing on the results DoSomeProcessing(resultsDataSet); // Save the results in Test, TestResults and TestAllocations tables in a transaction. // Sets a global transaction which is provided to all the adapter methods called below // It is defined in the Base class StartTransaction("TestTransaction"); // Save Test and get a testId int testId = UpdateTest(resultsDataSet); // Adapter method, uses the same transaction // Update testId in the other tables in the dataset UpdateTestId(resultsDataSet, testId); // Update TestResults UpdateTestResults(resultsDataSet); // Adapter method, uses the same transaction // Update TestAllocations UpdateTestAllocations(resultsDataSet); // Adapter method, uses the same transaction // It is defined in the base class CommitTransaction("TestTransaction"); } catch { RollbackTransaction("TestTransaction"); } return resultsDataSet; } Now the requirement is to do it for multiple set of data. One way would be to call the above DoTests() method in a loop and get the data. I would prefer doing it in parallel. But there are certain catches: StartTransaction() method creates a connection (and transaction) every time it is called. All the underlying database tables, procedures are the same for each call of DoTests(). (obviously). Thus my question are: Will using multithreading anyway improve performance? What are the chances of deadlock especially when new TestId's are being created and the Tests, TestResults and TestAllocations are being saved? How can these deadlocked be handled? Is there any other more efficient way of doing the above operation apart from looping over the DoTests() method repeatedly?

    Read the article

  • Why do updates inside of a SQL transaction still need disk IO?

    - by usr
    In SQL Profiler you can see that very simple updates to a table by primary key take about 10-30ms each. On about every 10th update the write column shows 1, on all other updates it shows 0. This must mean that about every 10th update statement still requires disk IO. I wonder why that is. Would it not be more efficient queue up all IO until the transaction commits?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >