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 afterwards; have
Kind Regards / Med venlig hilsen
Lars Nielsen
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Lars Nielsen" <l...@lfweb.dk>
>> To: "MySql" <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 23:19:29
>> Subject: Re: Examples of savepo
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 typical
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
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
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Raphael Bauduin rbli...@gmail.com 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 oldest one, which
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, requests by other
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 enable
: 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 transactions end. While the attempt to enable
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
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
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 updated accordingly
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
Quoting Angelo Vargas ang...@at.com:
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?
It's actually running 5.1.56 (percona)
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
Quoting Angelo Vargas ang...@at.com:
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
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 long periods of time would
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 people with technical
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
there any ideas on why my installation
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 explicitly
creating
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, or Oracle and DB2
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
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 nothing
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Daisley
john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk 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 Oracle
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 tables
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
).
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 this on the MySQL
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
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, you
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?
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT MAX(id) FROM table
INSERT
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 actually put a
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 one.
Beginning a transaction unlockes
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 work fine.
From what I've read
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 work fine.
From
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, in which
case, you do need to keep the lock until the transaction is over.
Oh, I see from
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
First I find a new id value, then I do several INSERTs that need
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 failure
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
-- some
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) +
(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:
(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
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.
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 point,
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 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't
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 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;
lock
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 * from t1
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
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
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 table, how do
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 + 1 to write a new row
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 both end
up writing a new
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 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 it
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 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 better off using a sequence
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 for Perl [1]).
That Perl
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 INTO table (id) VALUES (?)
INSERT
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 work fine.
That Perl
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 none
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 see all
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
until
there are no conflicting locks by other
transactions on the gap; note that this
flag
remains set when the waiting lock is
granted,
or if the lock is inherited
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 transactions on a gap
!
--
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 transactions can own X-lock on the same gap. The reason
why we let
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 list length 1
|
++-+
| 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 affected (2.51 sec)
mysql
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_logged
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
, entity_id INT UNSIGNED
, transaction_type
ViSolve DB Team
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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 shadow MyISAM table
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://www.sphinxsearch.com/ which works
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 search applications however it is
not that critical.
For some cases some extra filtering
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
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 preparation I need to do. I'm
).
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 out what
manual data
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 delete trigger on the ELEMS
table
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 lock
-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
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
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
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 to see a fellow Lasso user
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
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)
-
- 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.
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
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
-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 sure you're using the InnoDB storage engine
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]
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 transactions, I'll have to work
. 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 through that key
:
Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction
With InnoDB is there a way of completely disabling transactions on a
session. So I can delete data without rollback and on bad termination,
can restart and continue deleting where I left off?
Many thanks for an answer to this problem,
Ben
1 - 100 of 362 matches
Mail list logo
