t the ENTIRE transactions, and thus remove the savepoints.
A typical workflow for the kind of thing you're trying to do is to have your (automated)
testing framework restore last night's backup after the test run. You could also make a
backup before the test run and restore that afte
Kind Regards / Med venlig hilsen
Lars Nielsen
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Lars Nielsen"
>> To: "MySql"
>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 23:19:29
>> Subject: Re: Examples of savepoints and transactions
>
>>> D
What you're looking for is simple backup and restore :-)
Savepoints are, simply put, markers within a transaction; allowing you to
rollback only part of a transaction instead of the whole thing. A commit will
inevitably commit the ENTIRE transactions, and thus remove the savepoints.
A ty
Den 22-01-2018 kl. 22:01 skrev shawn l.green:
Hello Lars,
On 1/21/2018 3:37 PM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
I have a system that uses begin and commit transactions. It works
like a dream! ;)
Now I want to test it by creating test data. This how ever cannot be
rolled back. I think the solution
Hello Lars,
On 1/21/2018 3:37 PM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
I have a system that uses begin and commit transactions. It works like a dream!
;)
Now I want to test it by creating test data. This how ever cannot be rolled
back. I think the solution for rolling back test data is to use savepoints
Hi,
I have a system that uses begin and commit transactions. It works like a dream!
;)
Now I want to test it by creating test data. This how ever cannot be rolled
back. I think the solution for rolling back test data is to use savepoints and
rollback. I think it is hard to find examples of this
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the output of
> SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS \G
>
> I have several old active transactions, each having locked some rows.
> All or from the same process id, but with different thread ids. This
> is the
Hi,
In the output of
SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS \G
I have several old active transactions, each having locked some rows.
All or from the same process id, but with different thread ids. This
is the oldest one, which is 2.5 days old:
---TRANSACTION 0 1532609805, ACTIVE 227995 sec, process no
It may not have an impact on you, but be aware of this severe (imho) bug that
caused read_pnly to be ignored regardless of running transactions in version
5.5.8.
See bug#58669 and others.
We upgraded to 5.5.17 where the bug was fixed.
David.
From: Viacheslav
ubject: Read_only and InnoDB transactions
>
> Hi all.
>
> From the Mysql Documentation:
>
> If you attempt to enable read_only while other clients hold explicit table
> > locks or have pending transactions, the attempt blocks until the locks
> are
> > released and the t
What version do you use? David.
-Original Message-
From: Viacheslav Biriukov [mailto:v.v.biriu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:09 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Read_only and InnoDB transactions
Hi all.
>From the Mysql Documentation:
If you attempt to ena
Hi all.
>From the Mysql Documentation:
If you attempt to enable read_only while other clients hold explicit table
> locks or have pending transactions, the attempt blocks until the locks are
> released and the transactions end. While the attempt to enable read_only is
> pending,
Am 25.11.2011 14:20, schrieb Machiel Richards - Gmail:
> Just a quick question relating to the use of transactions on innodb tables.
>
> We are doing some archiving on some innodb tables, however there seems to be
> some issues somewhere in the
> process with data not being upda
Hi All
Just a quick question relating to the use of transactions on
innodb tables.
We are doing some archiving on some innodb tables, however
there seems to be some issues somewhere in the process with data not
being updated accordingly.
We would like to make use
It's actually running 5.1.56 (percona)
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM, wrote:
> Quoting Angelo Vargas :
>
> I keep getting this error when we get spikes in traffic.
>>
>> Even though max connections is set to 4096 and file limits are raised,
>> mysql
>> still gives this error.
>>
>> Is there
Quoting Angelo Vargas :
I keep getting this error when we get spikes in traffic.
Even though max connections is set to 4096 and file limits are raised, mysql
still gives this error.
Is there a setting I should be looking for that will allow me to raise
whatever causes this error?
Could be t
I keep getting this error when we get spikes in traffic.
Even though max connections is set to 4096 and file limits are raised, mysql
still gives this error.
Is there a setting I should be looking for that will allow me to raise
whatever causes this error?
Thanks
I can't speak for the MySQL people, but in my view your "workaround" is the
correct way of implementing this. It is not the database's job to keep track
of which user wants to keep what session open, and HTTP is stateless by
design. Keeping transactions open for relatively
CR: add support of interactive transactions for webclients
Hello,
I dont know how to place an idea (CR) for mySQL.
I try it that way.
At the moment I am implementing an "easy-to-use" multiuser webclient for
database usage.
(phpMyAdmin in contrast is a very powerful tool for p
Thanks for the clarification.
Michael
On May 17, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Michael Dykman wrote:
> MyISAM does not support transactions so it is inherently in
> 'autocommit mode' all the time. You will run into this with any
> transactional database, be it InnoDB, Falcon
MyISAM does not support transactions so it is inherently in
'autocommit mode' all the time. You will run into this with any
transactional database, be it InnoDB, Falcon, or Oracle and DB2
installations for that matter.
For many classes of application, avoiding autocommit and explicitl
ANSACTION and COMMIT
statements which then actually processes everything. I'm getting some 2014
"Commands out of sync" errors when I use transactions and try to perform a
second or third set of queries.
Is it required to use transaction statements when using InnoDB, and if not, are
the
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Daisley
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Probably a simple question for someone who knows :)
>
> Is there a way to force MySQLD to restart after it has finished processing
> all current transactions?
>
> I seem to remember from the bit of Oracl
Read the mysqld man pages about what it does with kill -X signals.
One of them may mean "graceful stop"
Or not.
If there is one, you'd still have to figure out how to tie that into a re-boot
or whatever for updates.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable feature request if you find nothin
Hi,
Probably a simple question for someone who knows :)
Is there a way to force MySQLD to restart after it has finished processing
all current transactions?
I seem to remember from the bit of Oracle work I did in the past we could
do a Transactional Restart in Oracle 10g which caused the server
the docs).
Does that mean what I did should have worked? I should not have had 2 rows in
that table after running the commands?
Thanks again...
I would like to wrap my updates top MySQL in transactions.
Use InnoDB tables.
PB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if you saw th
Thank you for your response. I am using InnoDB (picked that out of the docs).
Does that mean what I did should have worked? I should not have had 2 rows in
that table after running the commands?
Thanks again...
>I would like to wrap my updates top MySQL in transactions.
Use InnoDB tab
I would like to wrap my updates top MySQL in transactions.
Use InnoDB tables.
PB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if you saw this on the MySQL Forums but I have not gotten a
response... Thanks for your help...
I know this is probably a stupid question but I could use a nudge in the
I apologize if you saw this on the MySQL Forums but I have not gotten a
response... Thanks for your help...
I know this is probably a stupid question but I could use a nudge in the right
direction.
I would like to wrap my updates top MySQL in transactions. I am using ODBC as
my means of
> Sequences, if I got that right, need the new value to be stored
> immediately, i.e. outside of an active transaction. This requires a
> second connection to the database which probably causes more
> implementation work for my web application.
You mean real sequences? As with Oracle? Then no, yo
On 14.11.2007 12:50 CE(S)T, Martijn Tonies wrote:
> Yves,
>
> Did you read this reply I send earlier? I think it does what you
> want without needing to "lock" anything, thus making it portable.
>> I would suggest the following --
>>
>> create a table called "SEQUENCES":
Yes, I've read it and ac
Yves,
Did you read this reply I send earlier? I think it does what you
want without needing to "lock" anything, thus making it portable.
> > >> Damn, I found out that I need table locking *and* transactions.
> > >
> > > What makes you say that?
> >
On Nov 13, 2007 3:32 PM, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found the Oracle reference and it says that locks can never lock
> queries, so reading a table is possible in any case.
No, you just have to use FOR UPDATE and it will block.
- Perrin
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list arc
On 13.11.2007 20:43 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
> -- cxn 2
>
> set autocommit=0;
> begin;
> select * from t1;
> -- hangs
Delete my last message. I just did it again and now it works, too. I
have no idea what I did a couple of minutes ago, but it must have been
wrong.
Okay. Works, too. I was do
On 13.11.2007 20:57 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
> It will absolutely lock SELECTs. Are you sure autocommit is set to 0
> and you have an open transaction? Are you sure your table is InnoDB?
> I'm doing this right now:
>
> -- cxn 1
> mysql> set autocommit=0;
> mysql> begin;
> mysql> select *
On 13.11.2007 20:43 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
> Yves Goergen wrote:
>> I assume that at this point, any SELECT on the table I have locked
>> should block. But guess what, it doesn't. So it doesn't really lock.
>>
>
> What kind of lock are you using?
>
> -- cxn 1
>
> set autocommit=0;
> begin
Yves Goergen wrote:
On 13.11.2007 19:19 CE(S)T, Perrin Harkins wrote:
"You can use next-key locking to implement a uniqueness check in your
application: (...)
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-next-key-locking.html
This doesn't help my problem either. It may lock new INSERTs to the
On 13.11.2007 19:19 CE(S)T, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> "You can use next-key locking to implement a uniqueness check in your
> application: (...)
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-next-key-locking.html
This doesn't help my problem either. It may lock new INSERTs to the
table, but it won
Yves Goergen wrote:
On 13.11.2007 14:01 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
It's more complicated than that. You can use them together, you just
have to do it like this:
set autocommit = 0;
begin;
lock tables;
-- you are now in a transaction automatically begun by LOCK TABLES
.
I assume that
On 13.11.2007 14:01 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
> It's more complicated than that. You can use them together, you just
> have to do it like this:
>
> set autocommit = 0;
> begin;
> lock tables;
> -- you are now in a transaction automatically begun by LOCK TABLES
> .
I assume that at this
On Nov 13, 2007 11:39 AM, Baron Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> InnoDB can also lock the gap, which will prevent new rows that would
> have been returned by the SELECT. The manual has more info on this in
> the section on consistent reads in InnoDB. FOR UPDATE will do what you
> need.
Inte
Yves Goergen wrote:
(Damn I hate those lists that don't come with a Reply-To to the list!
Resending...)
On 13.11.2007 17:39 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
Yves Goergen wrote:
Row level locking can only lock rows that exist. Creating new rows (that
would have an influence on my MAX value) are st
(Damn I hate those lists that don't come with a Reply-To to the list!
Resending...)
On 13.11.2007 17:39 CE(S)T, Baron Schwartz wrote:
> Yves Goergen wrote:
>> Row level locking can only lock rows that exist. Creating new rows (that
>> would have an influence on my MAX value) are still possible and
Yves Goergen wrote:
On 13.11.2007 16:37 CE(S)T, mark addison wrote:
As your using InnoDB, which has row level locking a SELECT ... FOR
UPDATE should work.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/innodb-locking-reads.html
e.g.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
new_id := (SELECT MAX(id) FROM table FOR UPDATE) +
gt; -- your tables are now unlocked.
> The manual isn't very clear on the interaction between LOCK TABLES and
> transactions, it's true. But this is what I've found.
--
Yves Goergen "LonelyPixel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Visit my web laboratory at http://beta
On 13.11.2007 16:37 CE(S)T, mark addison wrote:
> As your using InnoDB, which has row level locking a SELECT ... FOR
> UPDATE should work.
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/innodb-locking-reads.html
> e.g.
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> new_id := (SELECT MAX(id) FROM table FOR UPDATE) + 1
> -- s
eed to be
atomic, and especially roll back completely if a later one fails.
If you use a table lock on the first table where you get the ID, you
know that ID is safe to use. Using a table lock when you get the ID
and then trusting transactions to roll back all the inserts in the
event of a later f
Yves,
> >> Damn, I found out that I need table locking *and* transactions.
> >
> > What makes you say that?
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> SELECT MAX(id) FROM table
> INSERT INTO table (id) VALUES (?)
> INSERT INTO othertable (id) VALUES (?)
> COMMIT
>
> F
second because of some invalid data, I need to also remove the first row
> again because it doesn't make sense alone. This is what transactions are
> for.
Yes, and you will be in a transaction, and the insert will be rolled
back. But maybe UNLOCK TABLES would commit your transaction
c, and especially roll back completely if a later one fails.
If you use a table lock on the first table where you get the ID, you
know that ID is safe to use. Using a table lock when you get the ID
and then trusting transactions to roll back all the inserts in the
event of a later failure should wor
especially roll back completely if a later one fails.
>
> If you use a table lock on the first table where you get the ID, you
> know that ID is safe to use. Using a table lock when you get the ID
> and then trusting transactions to roll back all the inserts in the
> event of a later f
On 13.11.2007 01:04 CE(S)T, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 6:47 PM, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From what I've read about MySQL's table locks and InnoDB, you cannot use
>> LOCK TABLES with transactions. Either of them deactivates the other
be
> atomic, and especially roll back completely if a later one fails.
If you use a table lock on the first table where you get the ID, you
know that ID is safe to use. Using a table lock when you get the ID
and then trusting transactions to roll back all the inserts in the
event of a
On 12.11.2007 23:31 CE(S)T, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 5:24 PM, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Damn, I found out that I need table locking *and* transactions.
>
> What makes you say that?
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT MAX(id) FROM table
INSERT I
On Nov 12, 2007 5:24 PM, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damn, I found out that I need table locking *and* transactions.
What makes you say that?
> Maybe I'm really better off using a sequence (like the one PostgreSQL
> offers and like it is available as an add-on
On 12.11.2007 22:16 CE(S)T, Yves Goergen wrote:
> Since I only need these locks for
> a very short time and a single table with no transaction support, this
> works fine for me.
Damn, I found out that I need table locking *and* transactions. I'm lost...
Maybe I'm really
On 12.11.2007 20:43 CE(S)T, Yves Goergen wrote:
> I'll have a look at those isolation levels though. Maybe it's what I'm
> looking for.
Not quite. But I'm going the LOCK TABLES way now. Locking a single table
exclusively for those rare moments seems to be the best solution.
I could also implement
On Nov 12, 2007 2:43 PM, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table WHERE name = ?
> -- a short delay which is long enough for a concurrent request :(
> UPDATE table SET name = ? WHERE id = ?
I think that even with SERIALIZABLE isolation level, this won't lock
anything if
Okay, I feel like I need to clarify some things.
I do have a UNIQUE INDEX constraint on those columns, so the other user
won't actually write the same value another time, but it will fail at a
level which it should not.
I don't want to use AUTO_INCREMENT because it's not portable. My
application
On Nov 12, 2007 1:25 PM, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I start a transaction, then find the maximum value of a column and
> use that + 1 to write a new row into the table, how do transactions
> protect me from somebody else doing the same thing so that we'd bot
Hello Yves,
> there's very much information about how transactions and locking works
> in InnoDB, but maybe there's also a simple and understandable answer to
> my simple question:
>
> When I start a transaction, then find the maximum value of a column and
> use that
Hi,
there's very much information about how transactions and locking works
in InnoDB, but maybe there's also a simple and understandable answer to
my simple question:
When I start a transaction, then find the maximum value of a column and
use that + 1 to write a new row into the tab
Hi Douglas,
Douglas Pearson wrote:
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but are SQL transactions in MySQL atomic?
I'm using InnoDB tables in MySQL5.
Clearly, transactions have the property that either all updates occur or
none do. By atomic, I mean are other queries guaranteed to either se
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but are SQL transactions in MySQL atomic?
I'm using InnoDB tables in MySQL5.
Clearly, transactions have the property that either all updates occur or
none do. By atomic, I mean are other queries guaranteed to either see all
changes from the transaction or
Hi,
Is it possible using PHP (PDO or native mysql/mysqli drivers) to do XA
transactions over two seperate database servers. In my case I need to process
remove rows from a production database server only once the slave has processed
the rows, and using XA transactions sounds like the better way
an insert of an index record to wait until
there are no conflicting locks by other
transactions on the gap; note that this
flag
remains set when the waiting lock is
granted,
r MySQL version is 4.1.18. Thx!
--
Best regards,
Leo Huang
2006/12/18, Heikki Tuuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Leo,
'gap' locks in InnoDB are purely 'inhibitive': they block inserts to the
locked gap. But they do not give the holder of the lock any right to
insert. Several transa
Leo,
'gap' locks in InnoDB are purely 'inhibitive': they block inserts to the
locked gap. But they do not give the holder of the lock any right to
insert. Several transactions can own X-lock on the same gap. The reason
why we let 'conflicting' locks of different
Which version of mysql is this?
In 5.1.12 when I run your test the section transaction blocks waiting
for the lock (as it should). My show innodb status output is:
TRANSACTIONS
Trx id counter 0 1300
Purge done for trx's n:o < 0 1288 undo n:o < 0 0
History li
---+
| id | name|
++-+
| 1 | huangjy |
| 2 | huangjy |
| 3 | huangjy |
| 4 | huangjy |
| 5 | huangjy |
| 7 | huangjy |
| 8 | huangjy |
| 9 | huangjy |
++-+
8 rows in set (1.98 sec)
When I start two transactions as follow:
Transaction 1:
mysql> begin;
Query OK, 0 rows
In the last episode (Nov 10), James Tu said:
> I'm going use MySQL to log transactions so that I can report on them
> later.
> Ex:
>
> CREATE TABLE statistics (
>id BIGINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT
> , user_id BIGINT UNSIGNED
>
Hi:
I'm going use MySQL to log transactions so that I can report on them
later.
Ex:
CREATE TABLE statistics (
id BIGINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT
, user_id BIGINT UNSIGNED
, entity_id INT UNSIGNED
, transaction_type INTEGER(2) UNSIGNED
, datetime_l
ViSolve DB Team
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:42 AM
Subject: Transactions in MySQL.
Hi All,
How transactions and locking are handled in MYSQL?
Is it a part of configuration? Or a query (lock tables, Unlock table
It only works with engines that support transactions like innodb and
solid, i strongly sugget to read these links from the manual.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/ansi-diff-transactions.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-transaction-model.html
Carlos
On 9/25/06, [EMAIL
Hi All,
How transactions and locking are handled in MYSQL?
Is it a part of configuration? Or a query (lock tables, Unlock tables)
for each set of queries?
Regards,
Ravi K
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to
this message are intended
Subject: RE: Problem with INNODB transactions
What connection pool code are you using? My guess is that the problem is
in your code somewhere. Either transactions are not being closed (i.e.
because of a connection pool flaw maybe?) or you have two threads trying
to update the same row at the same
What connection pool code are you using? My guess is that the problem is
in your code somewhere. Either transactions are not being closed (i.e.
because of a connection pool flaw maybe?) or you have two threads trying
to update the same row at the same time (in which case this would be
expected
Hi,
I am facing a strange problem with INNODB. My application communicates with
mysql server using JDBC. I am using mysql 5.1 version.
Even after issuing connection.commit() / connection.rollback() commands, still
on the sql side the transactions are not getting closed properly. In our
hat matter).
Although I haven't found a direct answer, my searching usually points me
to transactions in InnoDB. Is this what I will need to use to do what I
want?
I'm preparing to import a bunch of data that is coming from an Excel
file from one the vendors we deal with and I want to find
't found a direct answer, my searching usually points me
to transactions in InnoDB. Is this what I will need to use to do what I
want?
I'm preparing to import a bunch of data that is coming from an Excel
file from one the vendors we deal with and I want to find out what
manual data preparati
Peter Zaitsev wrote:
Right. If you want full text search to follow transaction isolation
as well you're in trouble.In most search applications however it is
not that critical.
Thats a pity. I will have to port the application to PostgreSQL then.
Thanks anyway,
LL
--
MySQL General
> or via triggers.
>
> How can I ensure isolation for queries on this "shadow" table? The
> documentation says that the table type does not support transactions.
Right. If you want full text search to follow transaction isolation
as well you're in trouble.In most sear
that the table type does not support transactions.
Sorry for being a bit dense here, but what do you mean exactly? Will
updates to the "shadow" table only be visible in their own transaction
until commit? Will they be rolled back on transaction abort?
You also can try sphinx: http:
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 08:49 +0100, Lexington Luthor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need fast text searching on a transactional table. Is it possible to
> use transactions and text-search on a table together yet in any
> production stable version of mysql?
Hi,
One of approaches is to have
Hi,
I need fast text searching on a transactional table. Is it possible to
use transactions and text-search on a table together yet in any
production stable version of mysql?
Thanks,
LL
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http
Robert,
- Original Message -
From: ""Robert DiFalco"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Why do these transactions show table locks?
It might be important to note that I have a d
-Original Message-
From: Robert DiFalco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:33 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why do these transactions show table locks?
My understanding is that innodb should not be using table locks for
insert, update, or
My understanding is that innodb should not be using table locks for
insert, update, or delete. However, the following transactions are
showing table locks. What's up?
R.
---TRANSACTION 0 4573, ACTIVE 1 sec, OS thread id 3112 setting table
lock
mysql tables in use 1, locked 0
LOCK WAIT 2
Hi,
We have moved from Mysql4 to MySQL5 and are currently planning our new database
schema. In this new approach we would like to move to InnoDB's storage engine
for transaction support and still want to use MySQL's FULLTEXT search
capabillities. And to make things easy we also want to replica
concurrency for inserts into a table
containing an AUTO_INCREMENT column. Two transactions cannot have the
AUTO-INC lock on the same table simultaneously.
What happened if it exist?... Any idea?
---TRANSACTION 0 461360628, ACTIVE 19 sec, process no 734, OS thread id
3136353728 setting auto-inc lock
ering if anyone else running cluster has had any issues with
transactions??? Anyone? I'd _really_ like to get this working
since my work-around is in my web application until I can get it working...
Good to see you on this list too James! :)
Cory.
James Harvard wrote:
Hi Cory - nice t
ort and Services
http://www.mysql.com/network/
-> -Original Message-
-> From: Cory @ SkyVantage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:45 AM
-> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mysql@lists.mysql.com
-> Subject: Transactions (not rolling back on error)
->
-&
Hi Cory - nice to see a fellow Lasso user here!
I've not use transactions myself but I think you might be having a problem with
autocommit.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/commit.html
HTH,
James Harvard
At 12:44 am -0700 15/12/05, Cory @ SkyVantage wrote:
>I have a transaction
I have a transaction that is very simple, I need to create records in
multiple tables that are related. If any one insert statement fails or
throws an error I want to rollback the ENTIRE transaction.
I thought that this was the default functionality, but apparently that's
not the case here.
Hello.
See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/transaction.html
liofr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
> i use a sofware to connect to mysql and it can connect with succes but
> wanted to share acces to mysql to many poeple and it popup
> [MUSQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver] Transaction are not
Hi
i use a sofware to connect to mysql and it can connect with succes but
wanted to share acces to mysql to many poeple and it popup
[MUSQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver] Transaction are not enable
Is ot a mysql server message or not ( my application )
thank's
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
C.F. Scheidecker Antunes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone tell me what to do in order to use transactions on a java
> application? Is there any howto regarding this issu?
>
> Thanks,
>
> C.F.
>
C.F.
First, make s
Hello,
Can anyone tell me what to do in order to use transactions on a java
application? Is there any howto regarding this issu?
Thanks,
C.F.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
may find these pages from the manual
helpful:
<http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/delete.html>
<http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/delete-speed.html>
The fastest way seem to be to dump the data, edit the file, and
re-insert the data.
But you have given my my solution:
If I cannot disable
is not key. Therefore repeated attempts
at deleting small amounts of data is very slow.
The fastest way seem to be to dump the data, edit the file, and
re-insert the data.
But you have given my my solution:
If I cannot disable transactions, I'll have to work with one of the keys
and iterate t
1 - 100 of 383 matches
Mail list logo
