Search Results

Search found 2359 results on 95 pages for 'transaction'.

Page 2/95 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Transaction Boundaries and Rollbacks in Oracle SOA Suite

    - by Antonella Giovannetti
    A new eCourse/video is available in the Oracle Learning Library, "Transaction Boundaries and Rollbacks in Oracle SOA Suite" . The course covers: Definition of transaction, XA, Rollback and transaction boundary. BPEL transaction boundaries from a fault propagation point of view Parameters bpel.config.transaction and bpel.config.oneWayDeliveryPolicy for the configuration of both synchronous and asynchronous BPEL processes. Transaction behavior in Mediator Rollback scenarios based on type of faults Rollback using bpelx:rollback within a <throw> activity. The video is accessible here

    Read the article

  • How To Check If a Transaction Related to Oracle Asset Tracking Has Been Accounted in SLA

    - by LuciaC-Oracle
    In Oracle Asset Tracking (OAT), we often see situations where a pending transaction has failed to be processed by the OAT programs. Typical situations can be: a pending transaction errors with "Unable to derive accounts from sub ledger accounting for the material transaction" a transaction is not picked by OAT programs. The Create Accounting program log file will show error messages and possible corrective actions to solve the error.  But as this is usually a scheduled program, often any errors that are reported are missed by users. To aid OAT users to identify if a transaction has failed and accounting has not been created, we have now created a SQL script which can be run for any pending transaction: How To Check If a Transaction Related to Oracle Asset Tracking Has Been Accounted in SLA ? (Doc ID 1673414.1)Using the script in this note, the user can pass the material transaction ID for the related transaction and the script will check if SLA accounting entries have been created for this specific transaction or not.If the SLA accounting entries have not been created, the script will prompt the user to run Create Accounting program.  After Create Accounting has been run, the user can run the script again to confirm that accounting has been created.

    Read the article

  • Transaction Isolation Level of Serializable not working for me

    - by Shahriar
    I have a website which is used by all branches of a store and what it does is that it records customer purchases into a table called myTransactions.myTransactions table has a column named SerialNumber.For each purchase i create a record in the transactions table and assign a serial to it.The stored procedure that does this calls a UDF function to get a new serialNumber before inserting the record.Like below : Create Procedure mytransaction_Insert as begin insert into myTransactions(column1,column2,column3,...SerialNumber) values( Value1 ,Value2,Value3,...., getTransactionNSerialNumber()) end Create function getTransactionNSerialNumber as begin RETURN isnull(SELECT TOP (1) SerialNumber FROM myTransactions READUNCOMMITTED ORDER BY SerialNumber DESC),0) + 1 end The website is being used by so many users in different stores at the same time and it is creating many duplicate serialNumbers(same SerialNumbers).So i added a Sql transaction with ReadCommitted level to the transaction and i still got duplicate transaction numbers.I changed it to SERIALIZABLE in order to lock the resources and i not only got duplicate transaction numbers(!!HOW!!) but i also got sporadic deadlocks between the same stored procedure calls.This is what i tried : (With ommissions of try catch blocks and rollbacks) Create Procedure mytransaction_Insert as begin SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE BEGIN TRASNACTION ins insert into myTransactions(column1,column2,column3,...SerialNumber) values( Value1 ,Value2 , Value3, ...., getTransactionNSerialNumber()) COMMIT TRANSACTION ins SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION READCOMMITTED end I even copied the function that gets the serial number directly into the stored procedure instead of the UDF function call and still got duplicate serialNumbers.So,How can a stored procedure line create something Like the c# lock() {} block. By the way,i have to implement the transaction serial number using the same pattern and i can't change the serialNumber to any other identity field or whatever.And for some reasons i need to generate the serialNumber inside the databse and i can't move SerialNumber generation to application level. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Simple Example of Snapshot Isolation – Reduce the Blocking Transactions

    - by pinaldave
    To learn any technology and move to a more advanced level, it is very important to understand the fundamentals of the subject first. Today, we will be talking about something which has been quite introduced a long time ago but not properly explored when it comes to the isolation level. Snapshot Isolation was introduced in SQL Server in 2005. However, the reality is that there are still many software shops which are using the SQL Server 2000, and therefore cannot be able to maintain the Snapshot Isolation. Many software shops have upgraded to the later version of the SQL Server, but their respective developers have not spend enough time to upgrade themselves with the latest technology. “It works!” is a very common answer of many when they are asked about utilizing the new technology, instead of backward compatibility commands. In one of the recent consultation project, I had same experience when developers have “heard about it” but have no idea about snapshot isolation. They were thinking it is the same as Snapshot Replication – which is plain wrong. This is the same demo I am including here which I have created for them. In Snapshot Isolation, the updated row versions for each transaction are maintained in TempDB. Once a transaction has begun, it ignores all the newer rows inserted or updated in the table. Let us examine this example which shows the simple demonstration. This transaction works on optimistic concurrency model. Since reading a certain transaction does not block writing transaction, it also does not block the reading transaction, which reduced the blocking. First, enable database to work with Snapshot Isolation. Additionally, check the existing values in the table from HumanResources.Shift. ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON GO SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO Now, we will need two different sessions to prove this example. First Session: Set Transaction level isolation to snapshot and begin the transaction. Update the column “ModifiedDate” to today’s date. -- Session 1 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN UPDATE HumanResources.Shift SET ModifiedDate = GETDATE() GO Please note that we have not yet been committed to the transaction. Now, open the second session and run the following “SELECT” statement. Then, check the values of the table. Please pay attention on setting the Isolation level for the second one as “Snapshot” at the same time when we already start the transaction using BEGIN TRAN. -- Session 2 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO You will notice that the values in the table are still original values. They have not been modified yet. Once again, go back to session 1 and begin the transaction. -- Session 1 COMMIT After that, go back to Session 2 and see the values of the table. -- Session 2 SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO You will notice that the values are yet not changed and they are still the same old values which were there right in the beginning of the session. Now, let us commit the transaction in the session 2. Once committed, run the same SELECT statement once more and see what the result is. -- Session 2 COMMIT SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO You will notice that it now reflects the new updated value. I hope that this example is clear enough as it would give you good idea how the Snapshot Isolation level works. There is much more to write about an extra level, READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT, which we will be discussing in another post soon. If you wish to use this transaction’s Isolation level in your production database, I would appreciate your comments about their performance on your servers. I have included here the complete script used in this example for your quick reference. ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON GO SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO -- Session 1 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN UPDATE HumanResources.Shift SET ModifiedDate = GETDATE() GO -- Session 2 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO -- Session 1 COMMIT -- Session 2 SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO -- Session 2 COMMIT SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Transaction Isolation

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Simple Example of Snapshot Isolation – Reduce the Blocking Transactions

    - by pinaldave
    To learn any technology and move to a more advanced level, it is very important to understand the fundamentals of the subject first. Today, we will be talking about something which has been quite introduced a long time ago but not properly explored when it comes to the isolation level. Snapshot Isolation was introduced in SQL Server in 2005. However, the reality is that there are still many software shops which are using the SQL Server 2000, and therefore cannot be able to maintain the Snapshot Isolation. Many software shops have upgraded to the later version of the SQL Server, but their respective developers have not spend enough time to upgrade themselves with the latest technology. “It works!” is a very common answer of many when they are asked about utilizing the new technology, instead of backward compatibility commands. In one of the recent consultation project, I had same experience when developers have “heard about it” but have no idea about snapshot isolation. They were thinking it is the same as Snapshot Replication – which is plain wrong. This is the same demo I am including here which I have created for them. In Snapshot Isolation, the updated row versions for each transaction are maintained in TempDB. Once a transaction has begun, it ignores all the newer rows inserted or updated in the table. Let us examine this example which shows the simple demonstration. This transaction works on optimistic concurrency model. Since reading a certain transaction does not block writing transaction, it also does not block the reading transaction, which reduced the blocking. First, enable database to work with Snapshot Isolation. Additionally, check the existing values in the table from HumanResources.Shift. ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON GO SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO Now, we will need two different sessions to prove this example. First Session: Set Transaction level isolation to snapshot and begin the transaction. Update the column “ModifiedDate” to today’s date. -- Session 1 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN UPDATE HumanResources.Shift SET ModifiedDate = GETDATE() GO Please note that we have not yet been committed to the transaction. Now, open the second session and run the following “SELECT” statement. Then, check the values of the table. Please pay attention on setting the Isolation level for the second one as “Snapshot” at the same time when we already start the transaction using BEGIN TRAN. -- Session 2 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO You will notice that the values in the table are still original values. They have not been modified yet. Once again, go back to session 1 and begin the transaction. -- Session 1 COMMIT After that, go back to Session 2 and see the values of the table. -- Session 2 SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO You will notice that the values are yet not changed and they are still the same old values which were there right in the beginning of the session. Now, let us commit the transaction in the session 2. Once committed, run the same SELECT statement once more and see what the result is. -- Session 2 COMMIT SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO You will notice that it now reflects the new updated value. I hope that this example is clear enough as it would give you good idea how the Snapshot Isolation level works. There is much more to write about an extra level, READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT, which we will be discussing in another post soon. If you wish to use this transaction’s Isolation level in your production database, I would appreciate your comments about their performance on your servers. I have included here the complete script used in this example for your quick reference. ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON GO SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO -- Session 1 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN UPDATE HumanResources.Shift SET ModifiedDate = GETDATE() GO -- Session 2 SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT BEGIN TRAN SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO -- Session 1 COMMIT -- Session 2 SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO -- Session 2 COMMIT SELECT ModifiedDate FROM HumanResources.Shift GO Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Transaction Isolation

    Read the article

  • SSIS Transaction with Sql Transaction

    - by Mike
    I started with a package to make sure Transactions are working correctly. The package level transaction is set to Required. I have two Execute Sql Task, one deletes rows from a table and one does 1/0, to throw the error. Both task are set to supported transaction level and Serializable IsolationLevel. That works. Now when I replace my two sql task to two separate procedure calls, the first one, ChargeInterest, runs successful but the second one, PaymentProcess, fails always saying. [Execute SQL Task] Error: Executing the query "Exec [proc_xx_NotesReceivable_PaymentProcess] ..." failed with the following error: "Uncommittable transaction is detected at the end of the batch. The transaction is rolled back.". Possible failure reasons: Problems with the query, "ResultSet" property not set correctly, parameters not set correctly, or connection not established correctly. PaymentProcess being the second stored procedure. Both procedures have there own BEGIN, COMMIT AND ROLLBACKS inside the SP. I believe that the transactions are being successfully handed in the Charge Interest because I can run the following without issues or the dreaded you started with 0 and now have 1 transaction. EXEC [proc_XX_NotesReceivable_ChargeInterest] 'NR', 'M', 186, 300 EXEC [proc_XX_NotesReceivable_PaymentProcess] 'NR', 186, 300 --OR GO BEGIN TRAN EXEC [proc_XX_NotesReceivable_ChargeInterest] 'NR', 'M', 186, 300 EXEC [proc_XX_NotesReceivable_PaymentProcess] 'NR', 186, 300 ROLLBACK TRAN Now I have noticed that DTC does get kicked off in both instances? Why I am not sure because it is using the same connection. In the live example I can see the transaction get started but disappears if I put a breakpoint on the PreExecute event of the second stored procedure. What is the correct way to mingle SP transactions with SSIS transactions?

    Read the article

  • Which layer implement Transaction mechanism

    - by didxga
    I knew ORM tools, such as Hibernate, have their own transaction management mechanism. We can also harness transaction by using JDBC directly. And DBMS has its transaction facilities either. I wonder that in which layer(s) the transaction is actually implemented in a J2EE application? Regards!

    Read the article

  • how to ensure that Nhibernate is inside a transaction when saving, updating or deleting

    - by pms1969
    I'd like to ensure that when I'm persisting any data to the database, using (Fluent)NHibernate, that the operations are executed inside a transaction. Is there anyway of checking that a transaction is active via an interceptor? Or any other eventing mechanism? More specifically, I'm using the System.Transaction.TransactionScope for transaction management, and just want to stop myself from not using it.

    Read the article

  • Simplest way to shrink transaction log files on a mirrored production database

    - by MGOwen
    What's the simplest way to shrink transaction log file on a mirrored production database? I have to, as my disk space is running out. I will make a full database backup before I do this, so I don't need to keep anything from the transaction log (right? I have daily full database backup, probably never need point-in-time restore, though I'll keep the option open if I can - that's all the .ldf is really for, correct?). (Hope this isn't an exact duplicate, I read a lot of questions but couldn't find this exact scenario elsewhere).

    Read the article

  • Transaction count after EXECUTE indicates that a COMMIT or ROLLBACK TRANSACTION statement is missing

    - by Paresh
    I am getting the error from the application as following with SQL server 2005 "Transaction count after EXECUTE indicates that a COMMIT or ROLLBACK TRANSACTION statement is missing. Previous count = 1, current count = 0" How can i find the stage where this error raised? how can i found the missing transaction or the stored procedure where it is not committ or rollback?

    Read the article

  • OptimisticLockException in inner transaction ruins outer transaction

    - by Pace
    I have the following code (OLE = OptimisticLockException)... public void outer() { try { middle() } catch (OLE) { updateEntities(); outer(); } } @Transactional public void middle() { try { inner() } catch (OLE) { updateEntities(); middle(); } @Transactional public void inner() { //Do DB operation } inner() is called by other non-transactional methods which is why both middle() and inner() are transactional. As you can see, I deal with OLEs by updating the entities and retrying the operation. The problem I'm having is that when I designed things this way I was assuming that the only time one could get an OLE was when a transaction closed. This is apparently not the case as the call to inner() is throwing an OLE even when the stack is outer()->middle()->inner(). Now, middle() is properly handling the OLE and the retry succeeds but when it comes time to close the transaction it has been marked rollbackOnly by Spring. When the middle() method call finally returns the closing aspect throws an exception because it can't commit a transaction marked rollbackOnly. I'm uncertain what to do here. I can't clear the rollbackOnly state. I don't want to force create a transaction on every call to inner because that kills my performance. Am I missing something or can anyone see a way I can structure this differently? EDIT: To clarify what I'm asking, let me explain my main question. Is it possible to catch and handle OLE if you are inside of an @Transactional method? FYI: The transaction manager is a JpaTransactionManager and the JPA provider is Hibernate.

    Read the article

  • Software for browsing/searching SQL Server transaction logs

    - by CodeByMoonlight
    I'd like to know whether there is any piece of software that will allow the browsing/searching of SQL Server transaction logs (any version). We've previously used Lumigent Log Explorer against SQL Server 2000 which fulfilled our need, but the product no longer exists and Lumigent's closest replacement doesn't appear to support SQL 2008 (according to the data sheet). I've discovered something called ApexSQL Audit which may fit the bill, but I'm wondering if anyone has any experience of it, how it compares with Log Explorer, and whether there are any good alternatives out there. Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Sharepoint 2007 - Transaction log full

    - by Kenny Bones
    So I have this SharePoint 2007 site that is basically trash. I'm supposed to just toss it, but I'm in need of copying all of the data in form of traditional files and folders from certain projects. And since the transaction log is full, it's so damn slow. Even opening SharePoint takes up to 15 minutes, or it won't open at all. Copying of files is extremely slow. So I'm in need of a quick fix here. Just to be able to copy out some files and folders. I don't need to fix the problem per se. What can I do to fix it temporarily to be able to copy out the data?

    Read the article

  • Install Base Transaction Error Troubleshooting

    - by LuciaC
    Oracle Installed Base is an item instance life cycle tracking application that facilitates enterprise-wide life cycle item management and tracking capability.In a typical process flow a sales order is created and shipped, this updates Inventory and creates a new item instance in Install Base (IB).  The Inventory update results in a record being placed in the SFM Event Queue.  If the record is successfully processed the IB tables are updated, if there is an error the record is placed in the csi_txn_errors table and the error needs to be resolved so that the IB instance can be created.It's extremely important to be proactive and monitor IB Transaction Errors regularly.  Errors cascade and can build up exponentially if not resolved. Due to this cascade effect, error records need to be considered as a whole and not individually; the root cause of any error needs to be resolved first and this may result in the subsequent errors resolving themselves. Install Base Transaction Error Diagnostic Program In the past the IBtxnerr.sql script was used to diagnose transaction errors, this is now replaced by an enhanced concurrent program version of the script. See the following note for details of how to download, install and run the concurrent program as well as details of how to interpret the results: Doc ID 1501025.1 - Install Base Transaction Error Diagnostic Program  The program provides comprehensive information about the errors found as well as links to known knowledge articles which can help to resolve the specific error. Troubleshooting Watch the replay of the 'EBS CRM: 11i and R12 Transaction Error Troubleshooting - an Overview' webcast or download the presentation PDF (go to Doc ID 1455786.1 and click on 'Archived 2011' tab).  The webcast and PDF include more information, including SQL statements that you can use to identify errors and their sources as well as recommended setup and troubleshooting tips. Refer to these notes for comprehensive information: Doc ID 1275326.1: E-Business Oracle Install Base Product Information Center Doc ID 1289858.1: Install Base Transaction Errors Master Repository Doc ID: 577978.1: Troubleshooting Install Base Errors in the Transaction Errors Processing Form  Don't forget your Install Base Community where you can ask questions to help you resolve your IB transaction errors.

    Read the article

  • Spring transaction demarcation causes new Hibernate session despite use of OSIV

    - by Kelly Ellis
    I'm using Hibernate with OpenSessionInViewInterceptor so that a single Hibernate session will be used for the entire HTTP request (or so I wish). The problem is that Spring-configured transaction boundaries are causing a new session to be created, so I'm running into the following problem (pseudocode): Start in method marked @Transactional(propagation = Propagation.SUPPORTS, readOnly = false) Hibernate session #1 starts Call DAO method to update object foo; foo gets loaded into session cache for session #1 Call another method to update foo.bar, this one is marked @Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED, readOnly = false) Transaction demarcation causes suspension of current transaction synchronization, which temporarily unbinds the current Hibernate session Hibernate session #2 starts since there's no currently-existing session Update field bar on foo (loading foo into session cache #2); persist to DB Transaction completes and method returns, session #1 resumes Call yet another method to update another field on foo Load foo from session cache #1, with old, incorrect value of bar Update field foo.baz, persist foo to DB foo.bar's old value overwrites the change we made in the previous step Configuration looks like: <bean name="openSessionInViewInterceptor" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.support.OpenSessionInViewInterceptor" autowire="byName"> <property name="flushModeName"> <value>FLUSH_AUTO</value> </property> </bean> <bean id="txManager" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DataSourceTransactionManager"> <property name="dataSource" ref="myDataSource" /> </bean> <bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.LocalSessionFactoryBean"> <property name="useTransactionAwareDataSource" value="true" /> <property name="mappingLocations"> <list> <value>/WEB-INF/xml/hibernate/content.hbm.xml</value> </list> </property> <property name="lobHandler"> <ref local="oracleLobHandler" /> </property> <!--property name="entityInterceptor" ref="auditLogInterceptor" /--> <property name="hibernateProperties" ref="HibernateProperties" /> <property name="dataSource" ref="myDataSource" /> </bean> I've done some debugging and figured out exactly where this is happening, here is the stack trace: Daemon Thread [http-8080-1] (Suspended (entry into method doUnbindResource in TransactionSynchronizationManager)) TransactionSynchronizationManager.doUnbindResource(Object) line: 222 TransactionSynchronizationManager.unbindResource(Object) line: 200 SpringSessionSynchronization.suspend() line: 115 DataSourceTransactionManager(AbstractPlatformTransactionManager).doSuspendSynchronization() line: 620 DataSourceTransactionManager(AbstractPlatformTransactionManager).suspend(Object) line: 549 DataSourceTransactionManager(AbstractPlatformTransactionManager).getTransaction(TransactionDefinition) line: 372 TransactionInterceptor(TransactionAspectSupport).createTransactionIfNecessary(TransactionAttribute, String) line: 263 TransactionInterceptor.invoke(MethodInvocation) line: 101 ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed() line: 171 JdkDynamicAopProxy.invoke(Object, Method, Object[]) line: 204 $Proxy14.changeVisibility(Long, ContentStatusVO, ContentAuditData) line: not available I can't figure out why transaction boundaries (even "nested" ones - though here we're just moving from SUPPORTS to REQUIRED) would cause the Hibernate session to be suspended, even though OpenSessionInViewInterceptor is in use. When the session is unbound, I see the following in my logs: [2010-02-16 18:20:59,150] DEBUG org.springframework.transaction.support.TransactionSynchronizationManager Removed value [org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.SessionHolder@7def534e] for key [org.hibernate.impl.SessionFactoryImpl@693f23a2] from thread [http-8080-1]

    Read the article

  • OO Design / Patterns - Fat Model Vs Transaction Script?

    - by ben
    Ok, 'Fat' Model and Transaction Script both solve design problems associated with where to keep business logic. I've done some research and popular thought says having all business logic encapsulated within the model is the way to go (mainly since Transaction Script can become really complex and often results in code duplication). However, how does this work if I want to use the TDG of a second Model in my business logic? Surely Transaction Script presents a neater, less coupled solution than using one Model inside the business logic of another? A practical example... I have two classes: User & Alert. When pushing User instances to the database (eg, creating new user accounts), there is a business rule that requires inserting some default Alerts records too (eg, a default 'welcome to the system' message etc). I see two options here: 1) Add this rule as a User method, and in the process create a dependency between User and Alert (or, at least, Alert's Table Data Gateway). 2) Use a Transaction Script, which avoids the dependency between models. (Also, means the business logic is kept in a 'neutral' class & easily accessible by Alert. That probably isn't too important here, though). User takes responsibility for it's own validation etc, however, but because we're talking about a business rule involving two Models, Transaction Script seems like a better choice to me. Anyone spot flaws with this approach?

    Read the article

  • Optimum size of transaction in Postgres?

    - by Joe
    I'm running a process that does a lot of updates ( 100,000) to a table. I have the choice between putting all the updates in a single transaction or committing transactions every 1000 or so. Ignore for the moment the case where a transaction fails and is aborted. I'm interested in the best size of transaction for memory and speed efficiency.

    Read the article

  • Handle Transaction on differents EARs

    - by rfders
    Hello, what is the best practice to handle multiple EARs and the same transaction, as far as we know we need to apply XA concepts in order transaction works correctly. but apparently in currents project that we've been working on, this is not strictly necessary for creates and updates; however if we try to retrieve any collection from an entity we get an error that say there its not an active transaction or it was closed, but if we update Entity A in Ear A and update Entity B in Ear B it works perfectly when Entity A and Entity B has different datasources, at this point we are so confused about that, because we haven't configure any xa datasource yet. how is the best approach to work with this. transaction are handles by beans and not by the container and datasource are different between EAR A and EAR B

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Linq queries not returning data saved in the same transaction

    - by Andrew
    Hi, I have a situation where I am using NHibernate in a WCF service and using a TransactionScope for the transaction management. NHibernate enlists in the ambient transaction fine, but, any changes I make and save inside the transaction, are not visible to any queries I make while still in that transaction. So if I add an entity and session.save() it, then further on in the code, there is a linq query against that entities table, the entity I just added is not returned. Strangely this seems to work fine if I use explicit NHibernate transactions in my tests. Anyone have any ideas as to why and what I can do about it? Many thanks Andrew

    Read the article

  • Execute Statements in a Transaction - Sql Server 2005

    - by Shrewd Demon
    hi, i need to update a database where some of the table have changed (columns have been added). I want to perform this action in a proper transaction. If the code executes without any problem then i will commit the changes otherwise i will rollback the database back to its original state. I want to do something like this: BEGIN TRANSACTION ...Execute some sql statements here COMMIT TRANSACTION (When every thing goes well) ROLLBACK TRANSACTION (When something goes wrong) Please tell me what is the best way to do this i know there is a @@TranCount variable but dont know its exact purpose. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • SQL transaction log backups conflicting with full backups?

    - by BradC
    On our SQL servers (2000, 2005, and 2008), we run full backups once a day in the evening, and transaction log backups every 2 hrs. We haven't really worried about these two processes conflicting, but lately we've run into some of the following issues: On one server, the trans log backup occasionally blocks the full backup, and must be manually stopped before the full backup can complete We sometimes end up with a massively-sized trans log backup file (sometimes larger than the full backup!) that seems to occur at the same time the full backup is running. I found a reference that indicate that these are "not allowed" to run at the same time, whatever that means: SQL 2000 Books Online and SQL 2005 Books Online. I'm not sure whether that means that the server will simply prevent them from running simultaneously, or if we ought to be explicitly stopping the log backups while the full backups are running. So are there known conflicts/issues between these? Does the answer differ between SQL versions? Should I have the trans log backup job check to see if the full backup is running before it executes? (and how do I do that...?)

    Read the article

  • Setting a time limit for a transaction in MySQL/InnoDB

    - by Trevor Burnham
    This sprang from this related question, where I wanted to know how to force two transactions to occur sequentially in a trivial case (where both are operating on only a single row). I got an answer—use SELECT ... FOR UPDATE as the first line of both transactions—but this leads to a problem: If the first transaction is never committed or rolled back, then the second transaction will be blocked indefinitely. The innodb_lock_wait_timeout variable sets the number of seconds after which the client trying to make the second transaction would be told "Sorry, try again"... but as far as I can tell, they'd be trying again until the next server reboot. So: Surely there must be a way to force a ROLLBACK if a transaction is taking forever? Must I resort to using a daemon to kill such transactions, and if so, what would such a daemon look like? If a connection is killed by wait_timeout or interactive_timeout mid-transaction, is the transaction rolled back? Is there a way to test this from the console? Clarification: innodb_lock_wait_timeout sets the number of seconds that a transaction will wait for a lock to be released before giving up; what I want is a way of forcing a lock to be released. Update: Here's a simple example that demonstrates why innodb_lock_wait_timeout is not sufficient to ensure that the second transaction is not blocked by the first: START TRANSACTION; SELECT SLEEP(55); COMMIT; With the default setting of innodb_lock_wait_timeout = 50, this transaction completes without errors after 55 seconds. And if you add an UPDATE before the SLEEP line, then initiate a second transaction from another client that tries to SELECT ... FOR UPDATE the same row, it's the second transaction that times out, not the one that fell asleep. What I'm looking for is a way to force an end to this transaction's restful slumber.

    Read the article

  • Transaction within a Transaction in C#

    - by Rosco
    I'm importing a flat file of invoices into a database using C#. I'm using the TransactionScope to roll back the entire operation if a problem is encountered. It is a tricky input file, in that one row does not necessary equal one record. It also includes linked records. An invoice would have a header line, line items, and then a total line. Some of the invoices will need to be skipped, but I may not know it needs to be skipped until I reach the total line. One strategy is to store the header, line items, and total line in memory, and save everything once the total line is reached. I'm pursuing that now. However, I was wondering if it could be done a different way. Creating a "nested" transaction around the invoice, inserting the header row, and line items, then updating the invoice when the total line is reached. This "nested" transaction would roll back if it is determined the invoice needs to be skipped, but the overall transaction would continue. Is this possible, practical, and how would you set this up?

    Read the article

  • What is the reason of "Transaction context in use by another session"

    - by Shrike
    Hi, I'm looking for a description of the root of this error: "Transaction context in use by another session". I get it sometimes in one of my unittests so I can't provider repro code. But I wonder what is "by design" reason for the error. I've found this post: http://blogs.msdn.com/asiatech/archive/2009/08/10/system-transaction-may-fail-in-multiple-thread-environment.aspx and also that: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff649002.aspx But I can't understand what "Multiple threads sharing the same transaction in a transaction scope will cause the following exception: 'Transaction context in use by another session.' " means. All words are understandable but not the point. I actually can share a system transaction between threads. And there is even special mechanism for this - DependentTransaction class and Transaction.DependentClone method. I'm trying to reproduce a usecase from the first post: 1. Main thread creates DTC transaction, receives DependentTransaction (created using Transaction.Current.DependentClone on the main thread 2. Child thread 1 enlists in this DTC transaction by creating a transaction scope based on the dependent transaction (passed via constructor) 3. Child thread 1 opens a connection 4. Child thread 2 enlists in DTC transaction by creating a transaction scope based on the dependent transaction (passed via constructor) 5. Child thread 2 opens a connection with such code: using System; using System.Threading; using System.Transactions; using System.Data; using System.Data.SqlClient; public class Program { private static string ConnectionString = "Initial Catalog=DB;Data Source=.;User ID=user;PWD=pwd;"; public static void Main() { int MAX = 100; for(int i =0; i< MAX;i++) { using(var ctx = new TransactionScope()) { var tx = Transaction.Current; // make the transaction distributed using (SqlConnection con1 = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString)) using (SqlConnection con2 = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString)) { con1.Open(); con2.Open(); } showSysTranStatus(); DependentTransaction dtx = Transaction.Current.DependentClone(DependentCloneOption.BlockCommitUntilComplete); Thread t1 = new Thread(o => workCallback(dtx)); Thread t2 = new Thread(o => workCallback(dtx)); t1.Start(); t2.Start(); t1.Join(); t2.Join(); ctx.Complete(); } trace("root transaction completes"); } } private static void workCallback(DependentTransaction dtx) { using(var txScope1 = new TransactionScope(dtx)) { using (SqlConnection con2 = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString)) { con2.Open(); trace("connection opened"); showDbTranStatus(con2); } txScope1.Complete(); } trace("dependant tran completes"); } private static void trace(string msg) { Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " : " + msg); } private static void showSysTranStatus() { string msg; if (Transaction.Current != null) msg = Transaction.Current.TransactionInformation.DistributedIdentifier.ToString(); else msg = "no sys tran"; trace( msg ); } private static void showDbTranStatus(SqlConnection con) { var cmd = con.CreateCommand(); cmd.CommandText = "SELECT 1"; var c = cmd.ExecuteScalar(); trace("@@TRANCOUNT = " + c); } } It fails on Complete's call of root TransactionScope. But error is different: Unhandled Exception: System.Transactions.TransactionInDoubtException: The transaction is in doubt. --- pired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding. To sum up: I want to understand what "Transaction context in use by another session" means and how to reproduce it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >