gt; On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, yoku ts. wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > If you use any *NOT InnoDB* storage engine, you're right.
> > > mysqldump with --single-transaction doesn't have any consistent as you
> > say.
> &g
ello,
> >
> > If you use any *NOT InnoDB* storage engine, you're right.
> > mysqldump with --single-transaction doesn't have any consistent as you
> say.
> >
> > If you use InnoDB all databases and tables, your dumping process is
> > protec
OT InnoDB* storage engine, you're right.
> mysqldump with --single-transaction doesn't have any consistent as you say.
>
> If you use InnoDB all databases and tables, your dumping process is
> protected by transaction isolation level REPEATABLE-READ.
>
>
> http://dev.my
Hello,
If you use any *NOT InnoDB* storage engine, you're right.
mysqldump with --single-transaction doesn't have any consistent as you say.
If you use InnoDB all databases and tables, your dumping process is
protected by transaction isolation level REPEATABLE-READ.
http://dev.mys
se mysqldump
>> as follows:
>>
>>
>> *mysqldump --single-transaction --all-databases > backup_sunday_1_PM.sql*
>>
>> MySQL manual says:
>>
>> This backup operation acquires a global read lock on all tables at the
>> beginning of the dump (us
Hello Geetanjali,
On 9/23/2014 7:14 AM, geetanjali mehra wrote:
Can anybody please mention the internals that works when we use mysqldump
as follows:
*mysqldump --single-transaction --all-databases > backup_sunday_1_PM.sql*
MySQL manual says:
This backup operation acquires a global r
Can anybody please mention the internals that works when we use mysqldump
as follows:
*mysqldump --single-transaction --all-databases > backup_sunday_1_PM.sql*
MySQL manual says:
This backup operation acquires a global read lock on all tables at the
beginning of the dump (using *FLUSH TAB
Hi:
I tried to get a S-lock using following SQL:
1. start transaction;
SELECT * FROM test.t1 where id=1;
But I found this way does not work. I changed it as following:
2. start transaction;
SELECT * FROM test.t1 where id=1 lock in share mode;
I am wondering why the
On 26 Jul 2012, at 21:43, James Devine wrote:
> I have a large series of mysql changes(inserts/deletes/updates) taking
> place in a transaction. After committing there may be some times where I
> need to roll those changes back later on. Is there an easy way of
> determining what wa
I have a large series of mysql changes(inserts/deletes/updates) taking
place in a transaction. After committing there may be some times where I
need to roll those changes back later on. Is there an easy way of
determining what was changed in a transaction in a way I can store it and
rollback
Hello:
I foud a question about function of transaction.
In this function switch not have break
Transaction::Transaction(Connection& conn, IsolationLevel level,
IsolationScope scope, bool consistent) :
conn_(conn),
finished_(
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Angela liu wrote:
> Can Isolation levels be set per transaction? I know isolation levels can be
> set per session or globally, but not sure at transaction level.
Given that you can only have one transaction at a time in a session,
there is no real diff
HI, Folks:
Can Isolation levels be set per transaction? I know isolation levels can be
set per session or globally, but not sure at transaction level.
if so , can anybody give me an example?
Thanks a lot
or you can use some tools, there is tons of third tools you can use.
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Prabhat Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> I think you can get only no. of transactions happned on the database since
> it was started.
>
> By using command "show status" ; variable "Questions" will give val
Hi,
I think you can get only no. of transactions happned on the database since
it was started.
By using command "show status" ; variable "Questions" will give value of
no. of transactions happened on the database since database was started.
But there is way u can use, as I used to calculate que
Hi ,
Is it possible to find the no.of transactions happened on the database for
the specified duration of time ? it could be for past 2/3 days.
Thanks
Anand
MySQL does not have a thing such the Oracle transaction log.
But it has the Binary Log used by replication,
for this reason the binary log is server level and it is "decoupled"
from the storage engine concept.
Basically (if we consider the old good "statement" format) it
InnoDB support transaction. MyISAM does not support trantsaction.
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/3382171/Transactions-in-MySQL.htm
2010-05-04
Best regards
Timo Seven
blog: http://zauc.wordpress.com
#请翻墙浏览，或者指定hosts到74.200.243.252###
twitter: https
I think you've got it a little wrong. In MySQL, transaction log is different
from bin-log. Transaction logs are used only for Innodb while bin-logs are
optional and capture data related to all the storage engines. I believe, you
cannot read thru the transaction logs and these logs files
Please help me to understand more about the mysql transaction log (
mysqlbinlog) file and its contents. Will it support only the innodb or all
the storage engine types like MyISAM, InnoDB?
Thanks,
Arsh Paul
Hi Yang,
On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Yang Zhang wrote:
I've noticed that Innodb seems to exhibit true serializability for the
serializable transaction isolation level. Does this mean it implements
predicate locking?
Kinda, but not exactly. In serializable, all reads will use shared
I've noticed that Innodb seems to exhibit true serializability for the
serializable transaction isolation level. Does this mean it implements
predicate locking? Also out of curiosity, is it possible to set a
snapshot isolation transaction isolation level (is Innodb implemented
using MVCC)? T
bject:
Re: Serialization failure: 1213 Deadlock found when trying to get lock;
try restarting transaction
Try to run
SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS;
Near the top there will be some information on the latest deadlock.
That might help you to understand what is deadlocking. Sometimes
changing the
equently get these messages:
DB ERROR: SQLSTATE[40001]: Serialization failure: 1213 Deadlock
found
when
trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
Am I writing my query wrong or expecting behavior that MySQL
doesn't
support?
--
- michael dykman
- mdyk...@gmail.com
May the
LECT $LOCK_ID, q.queue_id, 'parse', DATE_ADD(NOW(), INTERVAL 1 HOUR)
>>> FROM queue q
>>> LEFT JOIN cli_lock l ON l.object_id = q.queue_id AND l.lock_type =
>>> 'parse'
>>> WHERE l.object_id IS NULL
>>> AND q.status = 'parse&#x
d IS NULL
AND q.status = 'parse'
ORDER BY q.file_size ASC, q.created ASC, q.queue_id ASC
LIMIT 1
However, as I execute this query several times each minute from different
applications, I frequently get these messages:
DB ERROR: SQLSTATE[40001]: Serialization failure: 1213 Deadlock found
fferent
> applications, I frequently get these messages:
>
> DB ERROR: SQLSTATE[40001]: Serialization failure: 1213 Deadlock
found when
> trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
>
> Am I writing my query wrong or expecting behavior th
ile_size ASC, q.created ASC, q.queue_id ASC
> > LIMIT 1
> >
> > However, as I execute this query several times each minute from different
> > applications, I frequently get these messages:
> >
> > DB ERROR: SQLSTATE[40001]: Serialization failure: 1213 Deadlock found
.file_size ASC, q.created ASC, q.queue_id ASC
> LIMIT 1
>
> However, as I execute this query several times each minute from different
> applications, I frequently get these messages:
>
> DB ERROR: SQLSTATE[40001]: Serialization failure: 1213 Deadlock found when
> trying t
on failure: 1213 Deadlock found when
trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
Am I writing my query wrong or expecting behavior that MySQL doesn't
support?
-- Dante
Hi,
> I am getting "Can't execute the given command because you have active locked
> tables or an active transaction" error when I am trying to truncate table. I
> am unable to understand the error as when I am using the mysql query browser
> then the same command is
Hi All,I am getting "Can't execute the given command
because you have active locked tables or an active transaction" error when
I am trying to truncate table. I am unable to understand the error as when I am
using the mysql query browser then the same command is working fine but whe
There seems to be some confusion about 'multi-db'.Within a single
MySQL instance, assuming that all your tables are a transactional type
(InnoDB isn't the only one), you don't have to do anything special to
cross database boundaries. XA is required if you plan to spread your
transactions out
r, Sybase SQL
>> Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird!
>>
>> Database questions? Check the forum:
>> http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
>>
>>
>> Looks to me we should use XA transaction syntax instead. Check this:
>>
>>
>> http://dev.
d Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL
Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird!
Database questions? Check the forum:
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
Looks to me we should use XA transaction syntax instead. Check this:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/
://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
Looks to me we should use XA transaction syntax instead. Check this:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/xa.html
Thanks,
YY
2009/10/28 Martijn Tonies
Michael,
Does MySQL support multi-db transactions?
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Upscene
Looks to me we should use XA transaction syntax instead. Check this:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/xa.html
Thanks,
YY
2009/10/28 Martijn Tonies
> Michael,
>
> Does MySQL support multi-db transactions?
>
> With regards,
>
> Martijn Tonies
> Up
://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
That is correct. Many db interfaces off programmatic abstractions of
these facilities, but you may certainly just issue the statments.
START TRANSACTION
INSERT that
UPDATE that
on success: COMMIT
on error: ROLLBACK
- michael dykman
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM
That is correct. Many db interfaces off programmatic abstractions of
these facilities, but you may certainly just issue the statments.
START TRANSACTION
INSERT that
UPDATE that
on success: COMMIT
on error: ROLLBACK
- michael dykman
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Mosaed AlZamil wrote
Hello Everyone,
I am a newbie using innodb.
How can I implement START TRANSACTION COMMIT ROLLBACK when I need to update
two tables
that are located in two different databases. Would a single START
TRANSACTION be sufficient ?
Any help would be appreciated.
TIA
Mos
Hello Manasi,
Manasi Save wrote:
Hi All,
Can anyone provide me any input on in what all senerios one can get this
error. I have innodb tables, I am updating one table but I am getting
error lock wait timeout try restarting transaction. Also the parameter
innodb_lock_wait_timeout is set to 50
Hi All,
Can anyone provide me any input on in what all senerios one can get this
error. I have innodb tables, I am updating one table but I am getting
error lock wait timeout try restarting transaction. Also the parameter
innodb_lock_wait_timeout is set to 50 default. what will be the effect of
Hei All,
I am new here (my name is Gábor Lénárt and I am from Hungary), and I
am also quite new to develop more complex applications using RDBMS,
MySQL in our case. I hope it's the right place to ask general
questions too. I have experience to create simple applications without
transa
Hi Martin,
Sorry my example wasn't clearer. I am doing a commit or rollback
depending on the success of the overall transaction. What I don't do is
retry parts of the transaction upon deadlock.
Thanks for pointing that out, though!
Best,
Mike
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 16:46 -04
and related tables I have
code that does something like this:
1. Create transaction
2. REPLACE data in a single case as identified by a primary key
* The choice of using a REPLACE statement is that I want
it to INSERT or DELETE and INSERT the case data. With
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any way to rollback a transaction in MySQL 5.1 that contains
> "Create", "Alter", "Drop", table statements.
No. Sorry.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: h
Hi,
Is there any way to rollback a transaction in MySQL 5.1 that contains
"Create", "Alter", "Drop", table statements.
i.e. is there any way to turn off the feature:
"Statements That Cause an Implicit Commit"
or even remove some of the default statem
David Karr wrote:
it's supposedly good advice in a multi-step stored procedure to have an
explicit "start transaction" and "commit" wrapping the work. What is the
impact of doing this if the stored procedure is called from code managed by
a transaction manager. For ins
it's supposedly good advice in a multi-step stored procedure to have an
explicit "start transaction" and "commit" wrapping the work. What is the
impact of doing this if the stored procedure is called from code managed by
a transaction manager. For instance, in a JEE ap
into
> the base tables inside a transaction, the view doesn't seem to update.
> Only after the transaction is committed does the row appear in the
> view. Now I would like to avoid having to commit the transaction at
> that point. Is there any way to force a view to refresh inside a
&
Hi all,
I have a view that is joining two base tables. I can update through
the view, but insert only through the base tables. Now I am having the
problem that seems to boil down to the following: When I insert into
the base tables inside a transaction, the view doesn't seem to update.
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Assuming you're using InnoDB tables, "SELECT...FOR UPDATE" will lock
> the rows as you describe. It can prevent other inserts and updates to
> neighboring rows as well, depending on what isolation level you're
> running (default is REPEATABLE READ).
Thanks, in fact it eve
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:10 AM, John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now here's the question: I need to lock certain rows, so that no other
> client can read or write that rows (I want those clients to wait until the
> transaction is commited or rolled back). I don'
Hi,
i'm currently experimenting with nested sets. To insert a new node,, I
need 1 SELECT, 2 UPDATE and 1 INSERT statement.
Of course all of this wii be packed into a transaction, because the table
could get corrupted if not all of the mentioned queries are executed.
Now here's the q
Hi Saravanan,
Please check http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?97,18003,18003
-Raj.
-Original Message-
From: Saravanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:59 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: innodb transaction not works
Hi lists,
We are running database with
Hi lists,
We are running database with mixed tables myisam and innodb. I know that innodb
supports transactions. My server is running with default
transaction-isolation=REPEATABLE READ
Whenever our cron runs stats updation scripts. It locks whole table and make
other sql statements which
Hi...
I'm considering the following issue:
need to copy in db1 tbl_1 -> tbl_2
and in db2 cat -> dog
so i need to perform copies of both tbls in the two databases. and i need
them to both succeed, or to both be rolled back. the copies are in two
separate databases.
any thoughts on this...
t
Robert DiFalco wrote:
Is there any difference between calling rollback or commit on a
transaction that did not alter data? For example, not a read-only
transaction but a transaction that only performed read-only selects. Any
difference in performance between calling rollback or commit? I know
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Robert DiFalco
Cc: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates
I realize that wasn't the question, but it does seem like a lot of
trouble to get the equivalent of setAutoCommit
ichael Dykman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: Robert DiFalco
> Cc: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates
>
> If your transaction are only 1 query deep, why use them at all? An
> indivi
Sure, but that wasn't really the question.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dykman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:56 PM
To: Robert DiFalco
Cc: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates
If your transa
Is there any difference between calling rollback or commit on a
transaction that did not alter data? For example, not a read-only
transaction but a transaction that only performed read-only selects. Any
difference in performance between calling rollback or commit? I know
they are functionally the
If your transaction are only 1 query deep, why use them at all? An
individual query is already atomic, regardless of table type/server
mode.
- michael dkyman
On 9/17/07, Robert DiFalco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While it is functionally equivalent I wonder if it the code paths ta
ing a commit (unless there was an exception but I'm not
analyzing that case).
-Original Message-
From: Baron Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:36 PM
To: Robert DiFalco
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updat
Robert DiFalco wrote:
Is there any difference between calling rollback or commit on a
transaction that did not alter data? For example, not a read-only
transaction but a transaction that only performed read-only selects. Any
difference in performance between calling rollback or commit? I know
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list!
I've a problem with transaction
I initiate a transaction with "start transaction". Soon i execute
following query:
* update t1 set t=12; and by I complete I execute rollback but when I do
it I obtain the following thing:
"non-transa
Hi list,
I am going to change the type of table to InnoDB
Thank!!
Pablo
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
> I've a problem with transaction
> I initiate a transaction with "start transaction". Soon i execute
> following query:
> * update t1 set t=12; and by I complete I execute rollback but when I do
> it I obtain the following thing:
> "non-transactional
Hi list!
I've a problem with transaction
I initiate a transaction with "start transaction". Soon i execute
following query:
* update t1 set t=12; and by I complete I execute rollback but when I do
it I obtain the following thing:
"non-transactional Some changed tables cou
clusive next-key lock on every record
the search encounters."
So it sounds like the select for update will effectively be the same
as what I'm already doing, and thus suffer the same problem.
Is it just that locks don't apply outside the transaction? If
transactions can't solve sy
hat I'm already doing, and thus suffer the same problem.
Is it just that locks don't apply outside the transaction? If
transactions can't solve synchronisation problems between processes,
what are they for??!
Marcus
--
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://
On 13 Mar 2007, at 13:44, JamesDR wrote:
With what you've provided us: You can not prevent this. You are
running
in a transaction which is isolated from any others.
But doesn't that isolation provide atomicity, i.e. the first
transaction to commit will act as if all of its
Marcus Bointon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (repeat posting)
>
> I have a simple PHP function that initialises a process definition. To
> prevent it happening more than once, I'm wrapping it in a transaction,
> however, it doesn't seem to be working and I get multiple
&
Hi,
(repeat posting)
I have a simple PHP function that initialises a process definition.
To prevent it happening more than once, I'm wrapping it in a
transaction, however, it doesn't seem to be working and I get
multiple initialisations. In pseudocode:
BEGIN;
UPDATE process
shing them in db on some timeout.
You can also use making backup on slave as somebody mentioned before.
Filip
--
---TRANSACTION 0 190439971, ACTIVE 7 sec, process no 23228, OS thread id
2296302480 starting index read
mysql tables in use 1, locked 1
LOCK WAIT 2 lock struct(s),
Filip Krejci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suppose this is really I/O problem.
>
You're right, it looks like it was just an I/O problem - your suggestion
was spot on. I've now managed to dump my master data, and can get my
slave back online!
Thanks a lot for your suggestion,
--
Ian P. Christian ~ http://p
Filip Krejci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> you are right, option --single-transaction does not accquire any lock on
> your innodb tables. Backup is fully on-line due to mvcc.
>
> You should look for another reason of this behavior.
>
> 1/ What says 'show full processlist' whe
In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Ian P. Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This database I'm dumping has something like 17 million rows, all but
> 1 table (which uses FULLTEXT, and only has 3-4k rows) run innodb.
> There is only one table of any real size, and this table has all but
> about 100k o
I have few information, but i suppose that you are on performance border
of your db server. So you haven't reserve for doing backup.
Send some few rows of command vmstat 1, before backup process and
through backup process.
How are these numbers:
- queries per second ?
- updates / selects rate
On 7 Mar 2007, at 09:30, Ian P. Christian wrote:
--single-transaction
Creates a consistent snapshot by dumping all tables in a
single transaction. Works ONLY for tables stored in
storage engines which support multiversioning (currently
only InnoDB does); the dump is NOT guaranteed to be
Filip Krejci wrote:
Hi,
you are right, option --single-transaction does not accquire any lock on
your innodb tables. Backup is fully on-line due to mvcc.
You should look for another reason of this behavior.
1/ What says 'show full processlist' when backup is running
It sh
Hi,
you are right, option --single-transaction does not accquire any lock on
your innodb tables. Backup is fully on-line due to mvcc.
You should look for another reason of this behavior.
1/ What says 'show full processlist' when backup is running
2/ What says 'show engine
Marcus Bointon wrote:
Hi Marcus :)
> On 7 Mar 2007, at 08:44, Ian P. Christian wrote:
>
> --single-transaction doesn't _do_ the dump as a transaction, it simply
> wraps the dump in begin/commit statements so it's atomic when restoring.
>
> If the dump is to preserve
Hi ,
--single-transaction will execute the same nature of mysqldump command
with begin and end transaction. How ever the table is locked for the
backup your site may be slow.
--
Praj
Ian P. Christian wrote:
Recently my one and only slave went down, and stupidly I don't have a
dump sui
On 7 Mar 2007, at 08:44, Ian P. Christian wrote:
mysqldump --master-data --single-transaction database > dump.sql
This database I'm dumping has something like 17 million rows, all
but 1 table (which uses FULLTEXT, and only has 3-4k rows) run
innodb. There is only one table of any r
-
you live and learn.
So... I'm doing a database dump:
mysqldump --master-data --single-transaction database > dump.sql
This database I'm dumping has something like 17 million rows, all but 1
table (which uses FULLTEXT, and only has 3-4k rows) run innodb. There is
only one tabl
Hi,
I have a simple PHP function that initialises a process definition.
To prevent it happening more than once, I'm wrapping it in a
transaction, however, it doesn't seem to be working and I get
multiple initialisations. In pseudocode:
BEGIN;
UPDATE process SET status = '
Hi,
I have a simple PHP function that initialises a process definition.
To prevent it happening more than once, I'm wrapping it in a
transaction, however, it doesn't seem to be working and I get
multiple initialisations. In pseudocode:
BEGIN;
UPDATE process SET status = '
Hi Frederic,
Update then select on a single row table is transaction safe. If two
users start a transaction and issue update queries the first query to
execute will set a lock on that row. The second query will then block
on the update waiting to obtain the same lock. In innodb row locks are
not
auto-increment table.
I am using "UPDATE translations_seq SET id=LAST_INSERT_ID(id+1)" and
then I fetch my newest ID with "select id from translations_seq".
While this method is described in the manual as "multi-user safe" I
was wondering if this was also transactio
Mike Kruckenberg wrote:
mysql> SET @staff_id = LAST_INSERT_ID();
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)
I don't know if this behaviour has changed in later versions of mysql,
but using session variables, although lovely, was the quickest way to
break replication (at least up to and including 4.
Thanks for all your help Mike.
Problem solved. I divided to process in two parts: one write the
insert/update/delete and then write the changes in the audit trail. All this
inside one transaction. If the first part fails, ROLLBACK. If the second
part fails, ROLLBACK, otherwise, if both were done
Andre Matos wrote:
Thanks Mike.
I understand the possible "gaps" that I might have if I use the ROLLBACK.
This is acceptable in my case.
What I really want to avoid is what I am doing now: open one transaction to
insert, or update, or delete certain information and close with the co
Thanks Mike.
I understand the possible "gaps" that I might have if I use the ROLLBACK.
This is acceptable in my case.
What I really want to avoid is what I am doing now: open one transaction to
insert, or update, or delete certain information and close with the commit.
Then,
Andre Matos wrote:
SET AUTOCOMMIT=0;
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO staff (`Name`) VALUES ('ABC');
INSERT INTO changes (`Key`, `Table`, `Value`) VALUES (LAST_INSERT_ID(),
'staff', 'ABC');
COMMIT;
SET AUTOCOMMIT=1;
This works fine in my test environment, however
Andre Matos wrote:
The idea is to have a audit trail to record the changes made. So, I want to
insert a new record in the "staff" table and right after this, insert a
record in the "changes" table.
SET AUTOCOMMIT=0;
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO staff (`Name`) VALUES
'',
PRIMARY KEY (`ID`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 COLLATE=latin1_general_cs
AUTO_INCREMENT=1;
The idea is to have a audit trail to record the changes made. So, I want to
insert a new record in the "staff" table and right after this, insert a
record in the "
t; the first script commit to the database or rollback ?
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-transaction-isolation.html
--
George-Cristian Bîrzan
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everyone
I have a PHP script that will run every minute and do a lot of SELECT
and UPDATE statments
All my tables are InnoDB and I'm using PHP 5 and POD class (
http://php.net/pod ) to connect to mysql, in my script I start the
transaction (using method beginTransaction() ) in the begi
Leo wrote:
> Hi,all.I want to use mysqldump to backup a innodb table,and add the option
> --single-transaction,dose it lock all the table?thanks.
It has to so it can give you one transaction and make sure nothing else
gets entered after it starts and before it finishes.
--
MySQL G
1 - 100 of 420 matches
Mail list logo
