I followed the example given here of sys.dm_tran_locks, but instead of the second session blocks until the rollback of the first session, I need it to fail automatically if the lock exists, perhaps wait for a little amount of time before it fails.
Is there any parameter that I could configure to get that behavior? Other solutions are welcome.
but instead of the second session blocks until the rollback of the first session, I need it to fail automatically if the lock exists, perhaps wait for a little amount of time before it fails.
you will need to add SET options to your query
SET LOCK_TIMEOUT 1800; --milliseconds
GO
when you run the above query in a second session,it will wait only for specified time and will return error
Related
I want to automate some DB scaling in my Azure SQL database.
This can be easily initiated using this:
ALTER DATABASE [myDatabase]
MODIFY (EDITION ='Standard', SERVICE_OBJECTIVE = 'S3', MAXSIZE = 250 GB);
But that command returns instantly, whilst the resize takes a few 10s of seconds to complete.
We can check the actual current size using the following, which doesn't update until the change is complete:
SELECT DATABASEPROPERTYEX('myDatabase', 'ServiceObjective')
So naturally I wanted to combine this with a WHILE loop and a WAITFOR DELAY, in order to create a stored procedure that will change the DB size, and not return until the change has completed.
But when I wrote that stored procedure (script below) and ran it, I get the following error every time (at about the same time that the size change completes):
A severe error occurred on the current command. The results, if any, should be discarded.
The resize succeeds, but I get errors instead of a cleanly finishing stored procedure call.
Various things I've already tested:
If I separate the "Initiate" and the "WaitLoop" sections, and start the WaitLoop in a separate connection, after initiation but before completion, then that also gives the same error.
Adding a TRY...CATCH block doesn't help either.
Removing the stored procedure aspect, and just running the code directly doesn't fix it either
My interpretation is that the Resize isn't quite as transparent as one might hope, and that connections created before the resize completes get corrupted in some sense.
Whatever the exact cause, it seems to me that this stored procedure just isn't achievable at all; I'll have to do the polling from my external process - opening new connections each time. It's not an awful solution, but it is less pleasant than being able to encapsulate the whole thing in a single stored procedure. Ah well, such is life.
Question:
Before I give up on this entirely ... does anyone have an alternative explanation or solution for this error, which would thus allow a single stored procedure call to change the size and then not return until that sizeChange actually completed?
Initial stored procedure code (simplified to remove parameterisation complexity):
CREATE PROCEDURE [trusted].[sp_ResizeAzureDbToS3AndWaitForCompletion]
AS
ALTER DATABASE [myDatabase]
MODIFY (EDITION ='Standard', SERVICE_OBJECTIVE = 'S3', MAXSIZE = 250 GB);
WHILE ((SELECT DATABASEPROPERTYEX('myDatabase', 'ServiceObjective')) != 'S3')
BEGIN
WAITFOR DELAY '00:00:05'
END
RETURN 0
Whatever the exact cause, it seems to me that this stored procedure
just isn't achievable at all; I'll have to do the polling from my
external process - opening new connections each time.
Yes this is correct. As described here when you change the service objective of a database
A new compute instance is created with the requested service tier and
compute size... the database remains online during this step, and
connections continue to be directed to the database in the original
compute instance ... [then] existing connections to the database in
the original compute instance are dropped. Any new connections are
established to the database in the new compute instance.
The bolded text will kill your stored procedure execution. You need to do this check externally
I'm executing queries to SQL Server from an application. Sometimes one of those queries lasts very long. Too long actually, it usually indicates that it will eventually fail. I would like to specify a maximum duration, after which the query should just fail.
Is there a way to specify a command timeout in T-SQL?
I know a (connection and) command timeout can be set in the connection string. But in this application I cannot control the connection string. And even if I could it should be longer for the other queries.
As far as I know you cannot limit query time unless specified in the connection string (which you can't do) or if the query is executed over a linked server.
Your DBA can set the timeout to a linked server as well as to queries but a direct query does not let you do so yourself. The bigger question I would have is why does the query fail? Is there a preset timeout already on the server (hopefully), are you running out of memory and paging, or any of a million other reasons. Do you have a DBA? Because if one of my servers was being hammered by such bad code, I would be contacting the person who was executing it. If he hasn't, you should reach out and ask for help determining the failure reason.
If the unexpectedly long duration happens to be due to a (local) lock, there is a way to break out of it. Set the lock timeout before running the query:
SET LOCK_TIMEOUT 600000 -- Wait 10 minutes max to get the lock.
Do not forget to set it back afterwards to prevent subsequent queries on the connection from timing out:
SET LOCK_TIMEOUT -1 -- Wait indefinitely again.
I have a server application, and a database. Multiple instances of the server can run at the same time, but all data comes from the same database (on some servers it is postgresql, in other cases ms sql server).
In my application, there is a process that is performed which can take hours. I need to ensure that this process is only executed one at a time. If one server is processing, no other server instance can process until the first one has completed.
The process depends on one table (let's call it 'ProcessTable'). What I do is, before any server starts the hour-long process, I set a boolean flag in the ProcessTable which indicates that this record is 'locked' and is being processed (not all records in this table are processed / locked, so I need to specifically mark each record which is needed by the process). So when the next server instance comes along while the previous instance is still processing, it sees the boolean flags and throws an exception.
The problem is, that 2 server instances might both be activated at nearly the same time, and when both check the ProcessTable, there may not be any flags set, but both servers are actually in the process of 'setting' the flags but since the transaction hasn't yet commited for either process, neither process will see the locking done by the other process. This is because the locking mechanism itself may take a few seconds, so there is that window of opportunity where 2 servers might still be able to process at the same time.
It appears that what I need is a single record in my 'Settings' table which should store a boolean flag called 'LockInProgress'. So before even a server can lock the needed records in the ProcessTable, it first must make sure that it has full rights to do the locking by checking the 'LockInProgress' column in the Settings table.
So my question is, how do I prevent two servers from both modifying that LockInProgress column in the settings table, at the same time... or am I going about this in the wrong manner?
Please note that I need to support both postgresql and ms sql server as some servers use one database, and some servers use the other.
Thanks in advance...
How about obtaining a lock on the record first and then update the record to show "locked". This would avoid the 2nd instance to get a lock successfully and thereby the update of record fails.
The point is to make sure the lock and update as one atomic step.
Make a stored procedure that hands out the lock, and run it under 'serializable' isolation. This will guarantee that one and only one process can get at the resource at any given time.
Note that this means that the second process trying to get at the lock will block until the first process releases it. Also, if you have to get multiple locks in this manner, make sure that the design of the process guarantees that the locks will be acquired and released in the same order. This will avoid deadlock situations where two processes hold resources while waiting for each other to release locks.
Unless you can't deal with your other processes blocking this would probably be easier to implement and more robust than attempting to implement 'test and set' semantics.
I've been thinking about this, and I think this is the simplest way of doing things; I just execute a command like this:
update settings set settingsValue = '333' where settingsKey = 'ProcessLock' and settingsValue = '0'
'333' would be a unique value which each server process gets (based on date/time, server name, + random value etc).
If no other process has locked the table, then the settingsValue would be = to 0, and that statement would adjust the settingsValue.
If another process has already locked the table, then that statement becomes a no-op, and nothing get's modified.
I then immediately commit the transaction.
Finally, I requery the table for the settingsValue, and if it is the correct value, then our lock succeeded and we continue on, otherwise an exception is thrown, etc. When we're done with the lock, we reset the value back down to 0.
Since I'm using SERIALIZATION transaction mode, I can't see this causing any issues... please correct me if I'm wrong.
Is it possible in DB2 to detect if the table is locked or not. Actually whenever we use Select statement and if that table is locked [ may be because of on going execution of insertion or deletion ] , then we have to wait till the table is unlocked.
In our application sometimes it goes to even 2-3 mins. What i think is, if i can have some mechanism by which i can detect the locked table, then i will not even try to fetch the records, instead i will splash some message.
Not only in DB2, but is it possible to detect this in any Database.
I've never used DB2, but according to the documentation it seems you can use the following to make queries not wait for a lock:
SET CURRENT LOCK TIMEOUT NOT WAIT
Alternatively, you can set the lock timeout value to 0
SET CURRENT LOCK TIMEOUT 0
Both the statements have the same effect.
Once you have this, you can try to select from the table and catch the error.
I would recommend against NO WAIT, and rather, specify a low LOCK TIMEOUT (10-30s). If the target table is only locked temporarily (small update, say for 1 second), your second app will timeout immediately. If you have a 10s timeout, the second app would simply wait for the first app to COMMIT or ROLLBACK (1 sec) then move forward.
Also consider there's a bit of a "first come, first served" policy when it comes to handing out locks - if the second app "gives up", a third app could get in and grab the locks needed by the second. It's possible that the second app experiences lock starvation because it keeps giving up.
If you are experiencing ongoing concurrency issues, consider lock monitoring to get a handle on how the database is being accessed. There's lots of useful statistics (such as average lock-wait time, etc.) that can help you tune your parameters and application behaviour.
DB2 V9.7 Infocenter - Database Monitoring
I am running a bunch of database migration scripts. I find myself with a rather pressing problem, that business is waking up and expected to see their data, and their data has not finished migrating. I also took the applications offline and they really need to be started back up. In reality "the business" is a number of companies, and therefore I have a number of scripts running SPs in one query window like so:
EXEC [dbo].[MigrateCompanyById] 34
GO
EXEC [dbo].[MigrateCompanyById] 75
GO
EXEC [dbo].[MigrateCompanyById] 12
GO
EXEC [dbo].[MigrateCompanyById] 66
GO
Each SP calls a large number of other sub SPs to migrate all of the data required. I am considering cancelling the query, but I'm not sure at what point the execution will be cancelled. If it cancels nicely at the next GO then I'll be happy. If it cancels mid way through one of the company migrations, then I'm screwed.
If I cannot cancel, could I ALTER the MigrateCompanyById SP and comment all the sub SP calls out? Would that also prevent the next one from running, whilst completing the one that is currently running?
Any thoughts?
One way to acheive a controlled cancellation is to add a table containing a cancel flag. You can set this flag when you want to cancel exceution and your SP's can check this at regular intervals and stop executing if appropriate.
I was forced to cancel the script anyway.
When doing so, I noted that it cancels after the current executing statement, regardless of where it is in the SP execution chain.
Are you bracketing the code within each migration stored proc with transaction handling (BEGIN, COMMIT, etc.)? That would enable you to roll back the changes relatively easily depending on what you're doing within the procs.
One solution I've seen, you have a table with a single record having a bit value of 0 or 1, if that record is 0, your production application disallows access by the user population, enabling you to do whatever you need to and then set that flag to 1 after your task is complete to enable production to continue. This might not be practical given your environment, but can give you assurance that no users will be messing with your data through your app until you decide that it's ready to be messed with.
you can use this method to report execution progress of your script.
the way you have it now is every sproc is it's own transaction. so if you cancel the script you will get it update only partly up to the point of the last successfuly executed sproc.
you cna however put it all in a singel transaction if you need all or nothign update.