2010-11-02 00:03:50 +03:00
|
|
|
Transactions and Concurrency
|
|
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-01 23:16:12 +03:00
|
|
|
Transaction Demarcation
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction demarcation is the task of defining your transaction
|
|
|
|
boundaries. Proper transaction demarcation is very important
|
|
|
|
because if not done properly it can negatively affect the
|
|
|
|
performance of your application. Many databases and database
|
|
|
|
abstraction layers like PDO by default operate in auto-commit mode,
|
|
|
|
which means that every single SQL statement is wrapped in a small
|
|
|
|
transaction. Without any explicit transaction demarcation from your
|
|
|
|
side, this quickly results in poor performance because transactions
|
|
|
|
are not cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the most part, Doctrine 2 already takes care of proper
|
|
|
|
transaction demarcation for you: All the write operations
|
|
|
|
(INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) are queued until ``EntityManager#flush()``
|
|
|
|
is invoked which wraps all of these changes in a single
|
|
|
|
transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, Doctrine 2 also allows (and encourages) you to take over
|
|
|
|
and control transaction demarcation yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are two ways to deal with transactions when using the
|
|
|
|
Doctrine ORM and are now described in more detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approach 1: Implicitly
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first approach is to use the implicit transaction handling
|
|
|
|
provided by the Doctrine ORM EntityManager. Given the following
|
|
|
|
code snippet, without any explicit transaction demarcation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
// $em instanceof EntityManager
|
|
|
|
$user = new User;
|
|
|
|
$user->setName('George');
|
|
|
|
$em->persist($user);
|
|
|
|
$em->flush();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since we do not do any custom transaction demarcation in the above
|
|
|
|
code, ``EntityManager#flush()`` will begin and commit/rollback a
|
|
|
|
transaction. This behavior is made possible by the aggregation of
|
|
|
|
the DML operations by the Doctrine ORM and is sufficient if all the
|
|
|
|
data manipulation that is part of a unit of work happens through
|
|
|
|
the domain model and thus the ORM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approach 2: Explicitly
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The explicit alternative is to use the ``Doctrine\DBAL\Connection``
|
|
|
|
API directly to control the transaction boundaries. The code then
|
|
|
|
looks like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
// $em instanceof EntityManager
|
|
|
|
$em->getConnection()->beginTransaction(); // suspend auto-commit
|
|
|
|
try {
|
|
|
|
//... do some work
|
|
|
|
$user = new User;
|
|
|
|
$user->setName('George');
|
|
|
|
$em->persist($user);
|
|
|
|
$em->flush();
|
|
|
|
$em->getConnection()->commit();
|
|
|
|
} catch (Exception $e) {
|
|
|
|
$em->getConnection()->rollback();
|
|
|
|
$em->close();
|
|
|
|
throw $e;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explicit transaction demarcation is required when you want to
|
|
|
|
include custom DBAL operations in a unit of work or when you want
|
|
|
|
to make use of some methods of the ``EntityManager`` API that
|
|
|
|
require an active transaction. Such methods will throw a
|
|
|
|
``TransactionRequiredException`` to inform you of that
|
|
|
|
requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A more convenient alternative for explicit transaction demarcation
|
|
|
|
is the use of provided control abstractions in the form of
|
|
|
|
``Connection#transactional($func)`` and
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#transactional($func)``. When used, these control
|
|
|
|
abstractions ensure that you never forget to rollback the
|
|
|
|
transaction or close the ``EntityManager``, apart from the obvious
|
|
|
|
code reduction. An example that is functionally equivalent to the
|
|
|
|
previously shown code looks as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
// $em instanceof EntityManager
|
|
|
|
$em->transactional(function($em) {
|
|
|
|
//... do some work
|
|
|
|
$user = new User;
|
|
|
|
$user->setName('George');
|
|
|
|
$em->persist($user);
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between ``Connection#transactional($func)`` and
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#transactional($func)`` is that the latter
|
|
|
|
abstraction flushes the ``EntityManager`` prior to transaction
|
|
|
|
commit and also closes the ``EntityManager`` properly when an
|
|
|
|
exception occurs (in addition to rolling back the transaction).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exception Handling
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When using implicit transaction demarcation and an exception occurs
|
|
|
|
during ``EntityManager#flush()``, the transaction is automatically
|
|
|
|
rolled back and the ``EntityManager`` closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When using explicit transaction demarcation and an exception
|
|
|
|
occurs, the transaction should be rolled back immediately and the
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager`` closed by invoking ``EntityManager#close()`` and
|
|
|
|
subsequently discarded, as demonstrated in the example above. This
|
|
|
|
can be handled elegantly by the control abstractions shown earlier.
|
|
|
|
Note that when catching ``Exception`` you should generally re-throw
|
|
|
|
the exception. If you intend to recover from some exceptions, catch
|
|
|
|
them explicitly in earlier catch blocks (but do not forget to
|
|
|
|
rollback the transaction and close the ``EntityManager`` there as
|
|
|
|
well). All other best practices of exception handling apply
|
|
|
|
similarly (i.e. either log or re-throw, not both, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a result of this procedure, all previously managed or removed
|
|
|
|
instances of the ``EntityManager`` become detached. The state of
|
|
|
|
the detached objects will be the state at the point at which the
|
|
|
|
transaction was rolled back. The state of the objects is in no way
|
|
|
|
rolled back and thus the objects are now out of synch with the
|
|
|
|
database. The application can continue to use the detached objects,
|
|
|
|
knowing that their state is potentially no longer accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you intend to start another unit of work after an exception has
|
|
|
|
occurred you should do that with a new ``EntityManager``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Locking Support
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrine 2 offers support for Pessimistic- and Optimistic-locking
|
|
|
|
strategies natively. This allows to take very fine-grained control
|
|
|
|
over what kind of locking is required for your Entities in your
|
|
|
|
application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimistic Locking
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Database transactions are fine for concurrency control during a
|
|
|
|
single request. However, a database transaction should not span
|
|
|
|
across requests, the so-called "user think time". Therefore a
|
|
|
|
long-running "business transaction" that spans multiple requests
|
|
|
|
needs to involve several database transactions. Thus, database
|
|
|
|
transactions alone can no longer control concurrency during such a
|
|
|
|
long-running business transaction. Concurrency control becomes the
|
|
|
|
partial responsibility of the application itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrine has integrated support for automatic optimistic locking
|
|
|
|
via a version field. In this approach any entity that should be
|
|
|
|
protected against concurrent modifications during long-running
|
|
|
|
business transactions gets a version field that is either a simple
|
|
|
|
number (mapping type: integer) or a timestamp (mapping type:
|
|
|
|
datetime). When changes to such an entity are persisted at the end
|
|
|
|
of a long-running conversation the version of the entity is
|
|
|
|
compared to the version in the database and if they don't match, an
|
|
|
|
``OptimisticLockException`` is thrown, indicating that the entity
|
|
|
|
has been modified by someone else already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You designate a version field in an entity as follows. In this
|
|
|
|
example we'll use an integer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
class User
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// ...
|
|
|
|
/** @Version @Column(type="integer") */
|
|
|
|
private $version;
|
|
|
|
// ...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternatively a datetime type can be used (which maps to an SQL
|
|
|
|
timestamp or datetime):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
class User
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// ...
|
|
|
|
/** @Version @Column(type="datetime") */
|
|
|
|
private $version;
|
|
|
|
// ...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Version numbers (not timestamps) should however be preferred as
|
|
|
|
they can not potentially conflict in a highly concurrent
|
|
|
|
environment, unlike timestamps where this is a possibility,
|
|
|
|
depending on the resolution of the timestamp on the particular
|
|
|
|
database platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a version conflict is encountered during
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#flush()``, an ``OptimisticLockException`` is thrown
|
|
|
|
and the active transaction rolled back (or marked for rollback).
|
|
|
|
This exception can be caught and handled. Potential responses to an
|
|
|
|
OptimisticLockException are to present the conflict to the user or
|
|
|
|
to refresh or reload objects in a new transaction and then retrying
|
|
|
|
the transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With PHP promoting a share-nothing architecture, the time between
|
|
|
|
showing an update form and actually modifying the entity can in the
|
|
|
|
worst scenario be as long as your applications session timeout. If
|
|
|
|
changes happen to the entity in that time frame you want to know
|
|
|
|
directly when retrieving the entity that you will hit an optimistic
|
|
|
|
locking exception:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can always verify the version of an entity during a request
|
|
|
|
either when calling ``EntityManager#find()``:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
use Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode;
|
|
|
|
use Doctrine\ORM\OptimisticLockException;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$theEntityId = 1;
|
|
|
|
$expectedVersion = 184;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try {
|
|
|
|
$entity = $em->find('User', $theEntityId, LockMode::OPTIMISTIC, $expectedVersion);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// do the work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$em->flush();
|
|
|
|
} catch(OptimisticLockException $e) {
|
|
|
|
echo "Sorry, but someone else has already changed this entity. Please apply the changes again!";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or you can use ``EntityManager#lock()`` to find out:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
use Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode;
|
|
|
|
use Doctrine\ORM\OptimisticLockException;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$theEntityId = 1;
|
|
|
|
$expectedVersion = 184;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$entity = $em->find('User', $theEntityId);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try {
|
|
|
|
// assert version
|
|
|
|
$em->lock($entity, LockMode::OPTIMISTIC, $expectedVersion);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} catch(OptimisticLockException $e) {
|
|
|
|
echo "Sorry, but someone else has already changed this entity. Please apply the changes again!";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Important Implementation Notes
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can easily get the optimistic locking workflow wrong if you
|
|
|
|
compare the wrong versions. Say you have Alice and Bob accessing a
|
|
|
|
hypothetical bank account:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Alice reads the headline of the blog post being "Foo", at
|
|
|
|
optimistic lock version 1 (GET Request)
|
|
|
|
- Bob reads the headline of the blog post being "Foo", at
|
|
|
|
optimistic lock version 1 (GET Request)
|
|
|
|
- Bob updates the headline to "Bar", upgrading the optimistic lock
|
|
|
|
version to 2 (POST Request of a Form)
|
|
|
|
- Alice updates the headline to "Baz", ... (POST Request of a
|
|
|
|
Form)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now at the last stage of this scenario the blog post has to be read
|
|
|
|
again from the database before Alice's headline can be applied. At
|
|
|
|
this point you will want to check if the blog post is still at
|
|
|
|
version 1 (which it is not in this scenario).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using optimistic locking correctly, you *have* to add the version
|
|
|
|
as an additional hidden field (or into the SESSION for more
|
|
|
|
safety). Otherwise you cannot verify the version is still the one
|
|
|
|
being originally read from the database when Alice performed her
|
|
|
|
GET request for the blog post. If this happens you might see lost
|
|
|
|
updates you wanted to prevent with Optimistic Locking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See the example code, The form (GET Request):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
$post = $em->find('BlogPost', 123456);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
echo '<input type="hidden" name="id" value="' . $post->getId() . '" />';
|
|
|
|
echo '<input type="hidden" name="version" value="' . $post->getCurrentVersion() . '" />';
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the change headline action (POST Request):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
$postId = (int)$_GET['id'];
|
|
|
|
$postVersion = (int)$_GET['version'];
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$post = $em->find('BlogPost', $postId, \Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::OPTIMISTIC, $postVersion);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pessimistic Locking
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrine 2 supports Pessimistic Locking at the database level. No
|
|
|
|
attempt is being made to implement pessimistic locking inside
|
|
|
|
Doctrine, rather vendor-specific and ANSI-SQL commands are used to
|
|
|
|
acquire row-level locks. Every Entity can be part of a pessimistic
|
|
|
|
lock, there is no special metadata required to use this feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However for Pessimistic Locking to work you have to disable the
|
|
|
|
Auto-Commit Mode of your Database and start a transaction around
|
|
|
|
your pessimistic lock use-case using the "Approach 2: Explicit
|
|
|
|
Transaction Demarcation" described above. Doctrine 2 will throw an
|
|
|
|
Exception if you attempt to acquire an pessimistic lock and no
|
|
|
|
transaction is running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrine 2 currently supports two pessimistic lock modes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Pessimistic Write
|
|
|
|
(``Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_WRITE``), locks the
|
|
|
|
underlying database rows for concurrent Read and Write Operations.
|
|
|
|
- Pessimistic Read (``Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_READ``),
|
|
|
|
locks other concurrent requests that attempt to update or lock rows
|
|
|
|
in write mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can use pessimistic locks in three different scenarios:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Using
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#find($className, $id, \Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_WRITE)``
|
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#find($className, $id, \Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_READ)``
|
|
|
|
2. Using
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#lock($entity, \Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_WRITE)``
|
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
``EntityManager#lock($entity, \Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_READ)``
|
|
|
|
3. Using
|
|
|
|
``Query#setLockMode(\Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_WRITE)``
|
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
``Query#setLockMode(\Doctrine\DBAL\LockMode::PESSIMISTIC_READ)``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|