JPA is essentially an higher abstraction of JDBC. EntityManager has an API setAutoFlushMode. It can be set to AUTO or COMMIT. What's th equivalent of this in JDBC terms?
thanks
JDBC has auto commit as well.
They're both for configuring whether the library should automatically commit to the database.
JDBCs auto-commit is very simplistic, it will commit every update to the database immediately. Without auto-commit, changes aren't committed until the commit method is called.
JPA AUTO causes a flush to the database before a query is executed. Simple operations like find don't require a flush since the library can handle the search, however queries would be much more complicated, and so if AUTO is set, it will flush it first. If the mode is set to COMMIT, it will only flush the changes to the database upon a call to commit or flush. If COMMIT is set, and a query is run, it will not return results that have not been flushed.
Related
I have question about this paragraph
"Initially, all transactions are local. If a non-XA data source connection is the first resource connection enlisted in a transaction scope, it will become a global transaction when a (second) XA data source connection joins it. If a second non-XA data source connection attempts to join, an exception is thrown." -> link https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19229-01/819-1644/detrans.html (Global and Local TRansaction).
Can I have the first connection non XA and the second XA? So the first become xa without any Exception thrown? (I'm in doubt)
Can I have fist transaction marked xa, second marked xa and third non xa? (I suppose no)
what happens if the first ejb trans-type=required use XA on db and call a remote EJB trans-type=required(deployed in another app server) with a db non-xa? Could I have in this moment two distinct transaction so that xa is not the right choice? What happens if two ejb are in the same server but in two distinct ear?
"In scenarios where there is only a single one-phase commit resource provider that participates in the transaction and where all the two-phase commit resource-providers that participate in the transaction are used in a read-only fashion. In this case, the two-phase commit resources all vote read-only during the prepare phase of two-phase commit. Because the one-phase commit resource provider is the only provider to complete any updates, the one-phase commit resource does not have to be prepared."
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEQTP_8.5.5/com.ibm.websphere.base.doc/ae/cjta_trans.html
What mean for readonly ? So we can mix xa updates with readonly non xa?
Some of these should really be split out into separate questions. I can answer the first couple of questions.
Can I have the first connection non XA and the second XA?
Yes, if you are willing to use Last Participant Support
So the first become xa without any Exception thrown?
No, the transaction manager cannot convert a non-xa capable connection into one that is xa capable. A normal non-xa commit or rollback will be performed on the connection, but it still participates in the transaction alongside the XA resources. I'll discuss how this is done further down in summarizing the Last Participant Support optimization.
Can I have fist transaction marked xa, second marked xa and third non xa?
I assume you meant to say first connection marked xa, and so forth. Yes, you can do this relying on Last Participant Support
What mean for readonly ?
read-only refers to usage of the transactional resource in a way that does not modify any data. For example, you might run a query that locks a row in a database and reads data from it, but does not perform any updates on it.
So we can mix xa updates with readonly non xa?
You have this in reverse. The document that you cited indicates that the XA resources can be read only and the non-xa resource can make updates. This works because the XA resources have a spec-defined way of indicating to the transaction manager that they did not modify any data (by voting XA_RDONLY in their response to the xa.prepare request). Because they haven't written any data, they only need to release their locks, so the commit of the overall transaction just reduces to non-xa commit/rollback of the one-phase resource and then either resolution of the xa-capable resources (commit or rollback) would have the same effect.
Last Participant Support
Last Participant Support, mentioned earlier, is a feature of the application server that simulates the participation of a non-xa resource as part of a transaction alongside one or more xa-capable resources. There are some risks involved in relying on this optimization, namely a timing window where the transaction can be left in-doubt, requiring manual intervention to resolve it.
Here is how it works:
You operate on all of the enlisted resources (xa and non-xa) as you normally would, and when you are ready, you invoke the userTransaction.commit operation (or rely on container managed transactions to issue the commit for you). When the transaction manager receives the request to commit, it sees that there is a non-xa resource involved and orders the prepare/commit operations to the backend in a special way. First, it tells all of the xa-capable resources to do xa.prepare, and receives the vote from each of them. If all indicate that they have successfully prepared and would be able to commit, then the transaction manager proceeds to issue a commit to the non-xa resource. If the commit of the non-xa resource succeeds, then the transaction manager commits all of the xa-capable resources. Even if the system goes down at this point, it is written in the recovery log that these resources must commit, and the transaction manager will later find them during a recovery attempt and commit them, with their corresponding records in the back end being locked until that happens. If the commit of the non-xa resource fails, then the transaction manager would instead proceed to roll back all of the xa-capable resources. The risk here comes from the possibility that the request to commit the non-xa capable resources might not return at all, leaving the transaction manager no way of knowing whether that resource has committed or rolled back, and thus no way knowing whether to commit or roll back the xa-capable resources, leaving the transaction in-doubt and in need of manual intervention to properly recover. Only enable/rely upon Last Participant Support if you are okay with accepting this risk.
In some scenarios we should setAutoCommit(false) before query, see here https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/query.html#query-with-cursor and When does the PostgreSQL JDBC driver fetch rows after executing a query? .
But none of these topics mentioned how to do after query, when ResultSet and Statement is closed but Connection is not (may be recycled by ConnectionPool or DataSource).
I have these choices:
Do nothing (keep autoCommit = false for next query)
set autoCommit = true
commit
rollback
Which one is the best practice?
Even queries are executed in a transaction. If you started a transaction (which implicitly happened when you executed the query), then you should also end it. Generally, doing nothing would - with a well-behaved connection pool - result in a rollback when your connection is returned to the pool. However, it is best not the rely on such implicit behaviour, because not all connection pools or drivers will adhere to it. For example the Oracle JDBC driver will commit on connection close (or at least, it did so in the past, I'm not sure if it still does), and it might not be the correct behaviour for your program. Explicitly calling commit() or rollback() will clearly document the boundaries and expectations of your program.
Though committing or rolling back a transaction that only executed a query (and thus did not modify the database), will have the same end result, I would recommend using commit() rather than rollback(), to clearly indicate that the result was successful. For some databases, committing might be cheaper than rollback (or vice versa), but such systems usually have heuristics that will convert a commit to rollback (or vice versa, whatever is 'cheaper'), if the result would be equivalent.
You generally don't need to switch auto-commit mode when you're done. A well-behaved connection pool should do that for you (though not all do, or sometimes you need to explicitly configure this). Double check the behaviour and options of your connection pool to be sure.
If you want to continue using a connection yourself (without returning to the pool), then switching back to auto-commit mode is sufficient: calling setAutoCommit(true) with an active transaction will automatically commit that transaction.
It depends what you want to do afterwards. If you want to return to autocommit mode after the operation:
conn.setAutoCommit(true);
This will automatically commit the open transaction.
We have a spring-batch process that uses the bitronix transaction manager. On the first pass of a particular step, we see the expected commit behavior - data is only committed to the target database when the transaction boundary is reached.
However, on the second and subsequent passes, rows are committed as soon as they are written. That is, they do not wait for the commit point.
We have confirmed that the bitronix commit is only called at the expected points.
Has anyone experienced this behavior before? What kind of bug am I looking for?
Java XA is designed in such a way that connections cannot be reused across transactions. Once the transaction is committed, the connection property is changed to autocommit=true, and the connection cannot be used in another transaction until it is returned to the connection pool and retrieved by the XA code again.
If I execute some SQL inside a transaction successfully, can it happens that the commit will fail? And what are possible causes? Can it fail related to the executed queries, or just due to some DB side issues?
The question comes up because I need to judge if it makes sense to commit transactions inside tests or if it is "safe enough" to just rollback after each test case.
If I execute some SQL inside a transaction successfully, can it happens that the commit will fail?
Yes.
And what are possible causes?
DEFERRABLE constraints with SET CONSTRAINTS DEFERRED or in a one-statement autocommit transaction. (Can't happen unless you use DEFERRABLE constraints)
SERIALIZABLE transaction with serialization failure detected at commit time. (Can't happen unless you use SERIALIZABLE transactions)
Asynchronous commit where the DB crashes or is shut down. (Can't happen if synchronous_commit = on, the default)
Disk I/O error, filesystem error, etc
Out-of-memory error
Network error leading to session disconnect after you send the commit but before you get confirmation of success. In this case you don't know for sure if it committed or not.
... probably more
Can it fail related to the executed queries, or just due to some DB side issues?
Either. A serialization failure, for example, is definitely related to the queries run.
If you're using READ COMMITTED isolation with no deferred constraints then commits are only likely to fail due to underlying system errors.
The question comes up because I need to judge if it makes sense to commit transactions inside tests or if it is "safe enough" to just rollback after each test case.
Any sensible test suite has to cover multiple concurrent transactions interacting, committing in different orders, etc.
If all you test is single standalone transactions you're not testing the real system.
So the question is IMO moot, because a decent suite of tests has to commit anyway.
Upon client's request, I was asked to turn a web application on read-uncommitted isolation level (it's a probably a bad idea...).
While testing if the isolation was in place, I inserted a row without committing (DBVisualiser : #set autocommit off + stop VPN connection to the database) and I started testing my application towards that uncommitted insert.
select * from MYTABLE WHERE MY ID = "NON_COMMIT_INSERT_ID" WITH UR is working fine. Now I would like to "delete" this row and I did not find any way...
UPDATE : The row did disappear after some time (about 30min). I guess there is some kind of timeout before a rollback is automatically issued. Is there any way to remove an uncommitted row before this happens ?
I think that this will not be possible using normal SQL statements - the only way to delete the row will be to rollback the transaction which inserted it (or wait for tx to commit, then delete). As you have disconnected from DB on network level, then 30 minutes you talk about is probably TCP timeout enforced on operating system level. After TCP connection has been terminated, DB2 rollbacked client's transaction automatically.
Still I think you could administratively force application to disconnect from database (using FORCE APPLICATION with handle obtained from LIST APPLICATIONS) which should rollback the transaction, see http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/core/r0001951.htm for details on these commands.
It's one thing to read uncommitted rows from a data base. There are sometimes good reasons (lack of read locks) for doing this,
It's another to leave inserted, updated, or deleted rows on a data base without a commit or roll back. You should never do this. Either commit or roll back after a database change.