What is the perfect strategy to lock tables in MySql? - mysql

I have wrote this procedure which creates new A/c voucher. It runs on MySql 5.0. Now, it's time to implement this in our production. But I am not sure that it meets the requirement. Is this Lock Strategy perfect ? Please help.
It calls this way :
CALL SpAcVoucherCreate(1,'2022/03/31','2831',5000,'A001');
My procedure is as follows :
USE `FinanceDB`;
DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS `SpAcVoucherCreate`;
DELIMITER $$
CREATE DEFINER=`root`#`localhost` PROCEDURE `SpAcVoucherCreate`(
V_VOCHNO INT,
V_VOCHDT CHAR(10),
V_ACCODE CHAR(4),
V_AMOUNT DECIMAL(12,2),
V_USER_ID CHAR(5)
)
BEGIN
DECLARE V_ERR_OCCURED BOOLEAN;
SET V_ERR_OCCURED=FALSE;
BEGIN
DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR SQLEXCEPTION
SET V_ERR_OCCURED=TRUE;
SET AUTOCOMMIT=0;
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
START TRANSACTION;
LOCK TABLES `ACTRANS` WRITE;
INSERT INTO ACTRANS
(VOCHNO,VOCHDT,ACCODE,AMOUNT,USER_ID)
VALUES
(V_VOCHNO,V_VOCHDT,V_ACCODE,V_AMOUNT,V_USER_ID);
IF V_ERR_OCCURED=TRUE THEN
ROLLBACK;
ELSE
COMMIT;
END IF;
UNLOCK TABLES;
SET AUTOCOMMIT=1;
END;
END $$
DELIMITER ;

I find the procedure to be doing several things that are unnecessary.
SERIALIZABLE acts the same as REPEATABLE READ for what you're doing. The only effect of SERIALIZABLE in MySQL is that it makes non-locking SELECT statements into locking SELECT statements as if you had used SELECT...LOCK IN SHARE MODE. Since you only do an INSERT, this difference has no effect.
There's no need to disable autocommit and then do a transaction start and commit/rollback for a single statement. If you had left autocommit enabled, then a successful INSERT would commit, and an unsuccessful INSERT would not commit. It would have the same result as your code.
There would be no need for an SQLEXCEPTION handler to rollback the transaction, because you have only a single statement in the transaction. It either succeeds or it does not succeed.
Regardless of any of the above, you have shown no reason to use LOCK TABLES. It will only block INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE unnecessarily, if multiple clients try to add rows concurrently. If there is a special reason you need to do this, you have not described it.
Your procedure body has an unnecessary BEGIN/END block. It doesn't do anything. Also I believe that DECLARE is only allowed following the first BEGIN, not within other blocks in the body.
There is probably no reason to use a stored procedure at all, since it only accomplishes a single INSERT operation. Why not just do the INSERT directly in the client? I suppose if you want to restrict the privilege to do inserts to the procedure, if the user doesn't have that privilege, that would be a reason.
I also agree with the comment above that you are using a version of MySQL that is suspiciously out of date. MySQL 5.0 passed its end of life date in 2012, according to https://endoflife.software/applications/databases/mysql. You are missing many bug fixes, security patches, and of course modern features.
Update:
The comment from SolarFlare is correct, one is not allowed to use LOCK or UNLOCK statements in stored procedures in MySQL:
mysql> create procedure p()
-> begin
-> lock tables mytable write;
-> insert into mytable () values ();
-> unlock tables;
-> end//
ERROR 1314 (0A000): LOCK is not allowed in stored procedures

Related

Committing transactions while executing a postgreql Function

I have Postgresql Function which has to INSERT about 1.5 million data into a table. What I want is I want to see the table getting populated with every one records insertion. Currently what is happening when I am trying with say about 1000 records, the get gets populated only after the complete function gets executed. If I stop the function half way through, no data gets populated. How can I make the record committed even if I stop after certain number of records have been inserted?
This can be done using dblink. I showed an example with one insert being committed you will need to add your while loop logic and commit every loop. You can http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/contrib-dblink-connect.html
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION log_the_dancing(ip_dance_entry text)
RETURNS INT AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
BEGIN
PERFORM dblink_connect('dblink_trans','dbname=sandbox port=5433 user=postgres');
PERFORM dblink('dblink_trans','INSERT INTO dance_log(dance_entry) SELECT ' || '''' || ip_dance_entry || '''');
PERFORM dblink('dblink_trans','COMMIT;');
PERFORM dblink_disconnect('dblink_trans');
RETURN 0;
END;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE
COST 100;
ALTER FUNCTION log_the_dancing(ip_dance_entry text)
OWNER TO postgres;
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
select log_the_dancing('The Flamingo');
select log_the_dancing('Break Dance');
select log_the_dancing('Cha Cha');
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION;
--Show records committed even though we rolled back outer transaction
select *
from dance_log;
What you're asking for is generally called an autonomous transaction.
PostgreSQL does not support autonomous transactions at this time (9.4).
To properly support them it really needs stored procedures, not just the user-defined functions it currently supports. It's also very complicated to implement autonomous tx's in PostgreSQL for a variety of internal reasons related to its session and process model.
For now, use dblink as suggested by Bob.
If you have the flexibility to change from function to procedure, from PostgreSQL 12 onwards you can do internal commits if you use procedures instead of functions, invoked by CALL command. Therefore your function will be changed to a procedure and invoked with CALL command: e.g:
CREATE PROCEDURE transaction_test2()
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $$
DECLARE
r RECORD;
BEGIN
FOR r IN SELECT * FROM test2 ORDER BY x LOOP
INSERT INTO test1 (a) VALUES (r.x);
COMMIT;
END LOOP;
END;
$$;
CALL transaction_test2();
More details about transaction management regarding Postgres are available here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/plpgsql-transactions.html
For Postgresql 9.5 or newer you can use dynamic background workers provided by pg_background extension. It creates autonomous transaction. Please, refer the github page of the extension. The sollution is better then db_link. There is a complete guide on Autonomous transaction support in PostgreSQL. There is a third way to start autonomous transaction in Postgres, but some patching neede. Please see Peter's Eisentraut patch proposal for OracleDB-style transactions.

Do DMLs in a stored procedure run in a single transaction?

My MySQL 5.5 server has set autocommit=1.
My stored procedure has several DMLs but without explicit transaction management.
When I issue call the_procedure() from MySQL CLI (autocommit is still 1), do all the procedure's DMLs run in one transaction?
Or do they run in separate transactions, and causing implicit transaction commit after every DML (due to autocommit)?
This is surprising to me but:
Although MySQL will automatically initiate a transaction on your
behalf when you issue DML statements, you should issue an explicit
START TRANSACTION statement in your program to mark the beginning of
your transaction.
It's possible that your stored program might be run within a server in
which autocommit is set to TRUE, and by issuing an explicit START
TRANSACTION statement you ensure that autocommit does not remain
enabled during your transaction. START TRANSACTION also aids
readability by clearly delineating the scope of your transactional
code.
They run in separate transactions if autocommit=1. Suppose you define
CREATE TABLE test ( id int PRIMARY KEY )//
CREATE PROCEDURE sp_test_trans()
BEGIN
INSERT INTO test (id) VALUES (1);
INSERT INTO test (id) VALUES (2);
ROLLBACK;
END//
If you run this procedure with autocommit=0, the ROLLBACK will undo the insertions. If you run it with autocommit=1, the ROLLBACK will do nothing. Fiddle here.
Another example:
CREATE PROCEDURE sp_test_trans_2()
BEGIN
INSERT INTO test (id) VALUES (1);
INSERT INTO test (id) VALUES (1);
END//
If you run this procedure with autocommit=0, failure of the second insert will cause a ROLLBACK undoing the first insertion. If you run it with autocommit=1, the second insert will fail but the effects of the first insert will not be undone.
Tests done in the following SQL Fiddle, shows that by not explicitly handle transactions are handled separately when the variable autocommit is 1 (TRUE).

MySQL Script with rollback on error

I am trying to create a transaction in MySql which will roll back when an exception occurs during the transaction. Similar using the following in a stored procedure.
DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR SQLEXCEPTION ROLLBACK;
Can this be done without writing a stored procedure? For example the following snippet should roll back the first insert because the second insert would fail.
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO mytable VALUE 'foo1',2,'foo3','foo4'
INSERT INTO mytable VALUE 'foo1','foo2','foo3','foo4'
COMMIT
If I understand correctly you want to run a SQL script containing, for example inserts, in a single transaction that will rollback if any of the inserts fail. Is right?
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure you'd need to do this as a stored procedure or programatically in, say, Java.

Is there an equivalent for SQL Server's ##error in MySQL

I want to run an update query against a production database and as good little developer I am trying to make it as safe as possible. I am looking to do the following
BEGIN TRANSACTION
UPDATE table_x SET col_y = 'some_value'
.
.
.
IF (##error <> 0)
BEGIN
ROLLBACK
END
ELSE
BEGIN
COMMIT
END
The above should work in SQL Server but I need this to work against a MySQL database.
EDIT:
Sorry, there is more than 1 statement to execute. Yes I am aware of not needing to wrap a single query in a transaction.
BEGIN;
UPDATE foo SET bar = 3;
UPDATE bar SET thing = 5;
COMMIT;
If an error occurs, the entire transaction will be rolled back automatically. You really only need to execute ROLLBACK if something in your application indicates the need to rollback.
It is possible to handle errors explicitly within procedures or compound statements in MySQL, but I wouldn't recommend going down this route. See this how-to article and the docs for DECLARE HANDLER. You'll also have to find the specific error code you want to handle, or you can use the general SQLEXCEPTION condition. You'll also want to review compound statements and defining stored programs.
Anyway, based on the docs, you could do something like the query below, but it honestly wouldn't do anything differently than my previous answer above. It would also get you very strange looks from anyone who uses MySQL (including myself).
BEGIN
DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR SQLEXCEPTION ROLLBACK;
START TRANSACTION;
UPDATE foo SET bar = 3;
UPDATE bar SET thing = 5;
COMMIT;
END;
Old answer:
If you're executing a single query, this doesn't make sense. Simply execute the query; if an error occurs, nothing will happen - your transaction will automatically be rolled back.
The reason is that, by default, all single queries are wrapped in a "hidden" transaction, called "autocommit" mode in MySQL. The typical alternative is to explicitly use transactions - once you execute "BEGIN" you have started a transaction. Once you either COMMIT or ROLLBACK you'll be back in autocommit mode.
So, the only reason to use a transaction in MySQL is if you want to rollback to a particular state when an error (or some other external event) occurs. In MySQL, a transaction is always aborted if an error occurs.
Lastly, it is possible to turn this behavior off entirely, and then you must use transactions explicitly at all times. I believe "BEGIN" is implied from when you last committed or rolled back, but you must either COMMIT or ROLLBACK any queries you run.
See The InnoDB Transaction Model in the MySQL manual for more info.
CREATE PROCEDURE prc_test()
BEGIN
DECLARE EXIT HANDLER FOR SQLEXCEPTION
BEGIN
ROLLBACK;
END;
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT
INTO t_test VALUES ('test', 'test');
INSERT
INTO no_such_table
VALUES ('no');
COMMIT;
END;
CALL prc_test();
SELECT *
FROM t_test;
0 rows fetched.
I don't think this is necessary as there is the concept of implicit commit/rollback.
From MySQL docs:
By default, MySQL starts the session
for each new connection with
autocommit mode enabled, so MySQL does
a commit after each SQL statement if
that statement did not return an
error. If a statement returns an
error, the commit or rollback behavior
depends on the error. See Section
13.6.13, “InnoDB Error Handling”.

MySQL trigger : is it possible to delete rows if table become too large?

When inserting a new row in a table T, I would like to check if the table is larger than a certain threshold, and if it is the case delete the oldest record (creating some kind of FIFO in the end).
I thought I could simply make a trigger, but apparently MySQL doesn't allow the modification of the table on which we are actually inserting :
Code: 1442 Msg: Can't update table 'amoreAgentTST01' in stored function/trigger because it is already used by statement which invoked this stored function/trigger.
Here is the trigger I tried :
Delimiter $$
CREATE TRIGGER test
AFTER INSERT ON amoreAgentTST01
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
DECLARE table_size INTEGER;
DECLARE new_row_size INTEGER;
DECLARE threshold INTEGER;
DECLARE max_update_time TIMESTAMP;
SELECT SUM(OCTET_LENGTH(data)) INTO table_size FROM amoreAgentTST01;
SELECT OCTET_LENGTH(NEW.data) INTO new_row_size;
SELECT 500000 INTO threshold;
select max(updatetime) INTO max_update_time from amoreAgentTST01;
IF (table_size+new_row_size) > threshold THEN
DELETE FROM amoreAgentTST01 WHERE max_update_time = updatetime; -- and check if not current
END IF;
END$$
delimiter ;
Do you have any idea on how to do this within the database ?
Or it is clearly something to be done in my program ?
Ideally you should have a dedicated archive strategy in a separate process that runs at off-peak times.
You could implement this either as a scheduled stored procedure (yuck) or an additional background worker thread within your application server, or a totally separate application service. This would be a good place to put other regular housekeeping jobs.
This has a few benefits. Apart from avoiding the trigger issue you're seeing, you should consider the performance implications of anything happening in a trigger. If you do many inserts, that trigger will do that work and effectively half the performance, not to mention the lock contention that will arise as other processes try to access the same table.
A separate process that does housekeeping work minimises lock contention, and allows the work to be carried out as a high-performance bulk operation, in a transaction.
One last thing - you should possibly consider archiving records to another table or database, rather than deleting them.