Develop Reference

How to rollback multiple Queries on different database servers in case of any error

I am using different SQL procedures in an application.
First procedures insert some rows then some processing in C#code and then 2nd procedure
do some updation then again some code processing then third procedure delete some record and then insert new record. When all is done on Sever 1 then data is fetch from this server and sent to Server 2 there record is deleted and new record is inserted.
IF there is error at any stage on any server in any procedure i want to roll back all the record.
I can not use begin trans because processing takes time and can not block table as others users are also using same tables in parallel. So kindly tell me how can i achieve it without blocking the table for other users.
Thanks in advance.
Edited (Added code example):
I tried Transaction Scope but i am getting exception while opening the connection. I configured MS DTC but may be not configured properly.
"
Network access for Distributed Transaction Manager (MSDTC) has been disabled. Please enable DTC for network access in the security configuration for MSDTC using the Component Services Administrative tool."
using (TransactionScope ts = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required))
{
try
{
dl.SetBookReadyToLive(13570, false);
//SetBookReadyToLive
dl.AddTestSubmiitedTitleID(23402);
dl.AddBookAuthorAtLIve(13570, 1);
ts.Complete();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Response.Write(ex.Message);
}
}
public void SetBookReadyToLive(long BookID, bool status)
{
try
{
if (dbConMeta.State != ConnectionState.Open)
dbConMeta.Open();
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("spSetBookReadyToLive", dbConMeta);
cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
cmd.Parameters.Clear();
cmd.Parameters.Add("#BookID", BookID);
cmd.Parameters.Add("#status", status);
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
if (dbConMeta.State == ConnectionState.Open)
dbConMeta.Close();
}
catch
{
if (dbConMeta.State == ConnectionState.Open)
dbConMeta.Close();
}
}
I get the exception on opening the connection of method>
I am using SQL Server 2000, i have set the configuration of MS DTC on the machine where SQL Server is installed and also on my PC from where i am running the code. But still same exception.
Kindly help me to configure it

You can use the TransactionScope class. It works generally well but in case of distributed SQL servers like in your case requires the MS DTC enabled in both servers and configured properly (security has to be granted for execution of network transactions, distributed ones and so on...)
here a copy paste from an example on MSDN, you could "almost" use it like this... :)
// Create the TransactionScope to execute the commands, guaranteeing
// that both commands can commit or roll back as a single unit of work.
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
{
using (SqlConnection connection1 = new SqlConnection(connectString1))
{
// Opening the connection automatically enlists it in the
// TransactionScope as a lightweight transaction.
connection1.Open();
// Create the SqlCommand object and execute the first command.
SqlCommand command1 = new SqlCommand(commandText1, connection1);
returnValue = command1.ExecuteNonQuery();
writer.WriteLine("Rows to be affected by command1: {0}", returnValue);
// If you get here, this means that command1 succeeded. By nesting
// the using block for connection2 inside that of connection1, you
// conserve server and network resources as connection2 is opened
// only when there is a chance that the transaction can commit.
using (SqlConnection connection2 = new SqlConnection(connectString2))
{
// The transaction is escalated to a full distributed
// transaction when connection2 is opened.
connection2.Open();
// Execute the second command in the second database.
returnValue = 0;
SqlCommand command2 = new SqlCommand(commandText2, connection2);
returnValue = command2.ExecuteNonQuery();
writer.WriteLine("Rows to be affected by command2: {0}", returnValue);
}
}
// The Complete method commits the transaction. If an exception has been thrown,
// Complete is not called and the transaction is rolled back.
scope.Complete();
}
source: TransactionScope Class
to minimize locks you could specify the IsolationLevel with the overload of the constructor which takes a TransactionScopeOptions, default is Serializable if you are fine with that you could set it to ReadCommitted.
Note: Personally I would not use this one unless absolutely needed, because it's a bit of a pain to have the DTC always configured and Distributed Transactions are in general slower than local ones but really depends on your BL / DAL logic.

Short answer : The same way you would do it if you would do it in MS SQL Management Studio.
You open a connection to a server.
Open a transaction for a specific server
You run your queries related to this server
You make sure to keep your connection alive while you... [go back to 1. for next server]
If all your queries worked, commit all your changes.
Else, rollback all your queries.
Warning : The first table will most likely be locked until you're done with all your servers/queries. What you could do here to help this : If you got a lot of data, you can transfer the data to temporary tables on every servers before doing the step #2. Once this is done, you open the transaction, do your fast things, then commit/rollback asap.
Note: I know you asked how to achieve this without locking the tables, hence why I added an idea in the « warning » part.

Disable read/write to a table via SqlTransaction in .net?

How to use SqlTransaction in .net 2.0 so that when I start reading data from a table, that table is blocked for others (other programs) to read/write to that table?
If SqlTransaction is not a good option, than what is?

This should be allowed by using Serializable transaction together with TABLOCKX hint in initial select statement. TABLOCKX should take exclusive lock on the table so nobody else can use that table and Serializable transaction should demand HOLDLOCK which means that all locks are kept until end of the transaction (you can use HOLDLOCK directly).
Update: I just tested different scenarios in Management studio and it
looks like you do not need to
explicitly use Serializable
transaction. Using TABLOCKX within any
transaction is enough.
Be aware that such approach can be big bottleneck because only one transaction can operate on such table = no concurrency. Even if you read and work with single record from million nobody else will be able to work with the table until your transaction ends.
So the command should look like:
SELECT * FROM Table WITH (TABLOCKX) WHERE ...
To use serializable transaction you can use SqlTransaction:
using (SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
{
connection.Open();
SqlTransaction transaction = connection.BeginTransaction(IsolationLevel.Serializable);
try
{
...
transaction.Commit();
}
catch (Exception)
{
transaction.Rollback();
...
}
}
Or System.Transactions.TransactionScope (default isolation level should be Serializable).
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
{
using (SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
{
...
}
scope.Complete();
}

BeginExecuteNonQuery without EndExecuteNonQuery

I have the following code:
using (SqlConnection sqlConnection = new SqlConnection("blahblah;Asynchronous Processing=true;")
{
using (SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand("someProcedureName", sqlConnection))
{
sqlConnection.Open();
command.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
command.Parameters.AddWithValue("#param1", param1);
command.BeginExecuteNonQuery();
}
}
I never call EndExecuteNonQuery.
Two questions, first will this block because of the using statements or any other reason? Second, will it break anything? Like leaks or connection problems? I just want to tell sql server to run a stored procedure, but I don't want to wait for it and I don't even care if it works. Is that possible? Thanks for reading.

This won't work because you're closing the connection while the query is still running. The best way to do this would be to use the threadpool, like this:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate {
using (SqlConnection sqlConnection = new SqlConnection("blahblah;Asynchronous Processing=true;") {
using (SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand("someProcedureName", sqlConnection)) {
sqlConnection.Open();
command.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
command.Parameters.AddWithValue("#param1", param1);
command.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
}
});
In general, when you call Begin_Whatever_, you usually must call End_Whatever_ or you'll leak memory. The big exception to this rule is Control.BeginInvoke.

You can't close the connection after you submit the BeginExceuteNotQuery. It will abort the execution. Remove the using block.
In order to close the connection, you must know when the call has completed. For that you must call EndExecuteNonQuery, usually from a callback:
.
command.BeginExecuteNonQuery(delegate (IAsyncResult ar) {
try { command.EndExecuteNonQuery(ar); }
catch(Exception e) { /* log exception e */ }
finally { sqlConnection.Dispose(); }
}, null);
If you want to submit a query and don't care about the results, see Asynchronous T-SQL execution for a reliable pattern that ensures execution even if client diconnects or crashes.

You should always call the EndExecuteNonQuery() method to prevent leaks. It may work now but who knows what will happen in future versions of .NET. The general rule is always follow a BeginExecute... with an EndExecute...

I know this is an old post; just adding my 2c based on our recent (very conclusive) implementation and testing :D
To answer the OP's questions:
If you don't call EndExecuteNonQuery, BeginExecuteNonQuery will execute the procedure, but the operation will be cancelled as soon as the using clause disposes of your sql connection. Hence this is not plausible.
If you call BeginExecuteNonQuery by using a delegate, creating a new thread etc and you do not call EndExecuteNonQuery, chances are good you might get memory leaks depending on what takes place in you stored procedure. (More on this later).
Calling an stored procedure and not waiting for the call to complete, as far I our testing went, is not possible. Irrespective of multitasking, something somewhere will have to wait.
On to our solution:
Refs: BeginExecuteNonQuery -> BENQ, EndExecuteNonQuery -> EENQ
Use Case:
We have a windows service (C#) that makes use of the .Net TPL library. We needed to load data with a stored procedure from one database to another at run time, based on a add hoc request that the service picks up. Our stored procedure had an internal transaction and exception handling with try catch blocks.
First Try:
For our first try we implemented a solution found here MS Solution in this example you will see that MS opts to call BENQ then implements a while loop to block execution and then calls EENQ. This solution was mainly implemented if you don't need a callback method. The problem with this solution is that only BENQ is ignorant to sql connection timeouts. EENQ will timeout. So for a long running query (which is hopefully the reason why you are using BENQ) you will get stuck in the while and once the operation has completed and you call EENQ, you will get an sql timeout connection.
Second Try:
For our second try we thought ok so lets call BENQ, then add a while so that we don't close our sql connection and never call EENQ. This worked, until an exception was thrown in our stored procedure. Because we never called EENQ, the operation was never completed and the exception never bubbled up to our code. Hence we were stuck in a loop/thread/memory leak forever.
Third Try: (The Solution)
For our third try we thought to call BENQ, then directly after call EENQ. What happened was that EENQ effectively blocked execution in the thread until the operation completed. When an exception occurred in the stored procedure it was caught. When the query ran long EENQ did not throw a timeout exception and in all cases our sql connection object was disposed as well as our thread.
Here are some extracts of our code:
Here we open up a new thread for the method that calls the stored procedure.
//Call the load data stored procedure. As this stored procedure can run longer we start it in its own thread.
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => ClassName.MethodName(Parameters));
This is the code inside the method we use to call the stored procedure.
//Because this is a long running stored procedure, we start is up in a new thread.
using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ConnectionStringName"]].ConnectionString))
{
try
{
//Create a new instance SqlCommand.
SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["StoredProcedureName"], conn);
//Set the command type as stored procedure.
command.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
//Create input parameters.
command.Parameters.Add(CreateInputParam("#Param1", SqlDbType.BigInt, Param1));
command.Parameters.Add(CreateInputParam("#Param2", SqlDbType.BigInt, Param3));
command.Parameters.Add(CreateInputParam("#Param3", SqlDbType.BigInt, Param3));
//Open up the sql connection.
conn.Open();
//Create a new instance of type IAsyncResult and call the sp asynchronously.
IAsyncResult result = command.BeginExecuteNonQuery();
//When the process has completed, we end the execution of the sp.
command.EndExecuteNonQuery(result);
}
catch (Exception err)
{
//Write to the log.
}
}
I hope this answer save's someone some headache :D We have tested this thoroughly and have not experienced any issues.
Happy coding!

In this case the using statements won't be necessary because you should manually close it yourself rather than allowing the syntactic sugar dispose it for you (i.e. at the }).
It should be as simple as this to ensure you don't have leaks.
using (SqlConnection sqlConnection = new SqlConnection("blahblah;Asynchronous Processing=true;")
{
using (SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand("someProcedureName", sqlConnection))
{
sqlConnection.Open();
command.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
command.Parameters.AddWithValue("#param1", param1);
command.BeginExecuteNonQuery((ar) =>
{
var cmd = (SqlCommand)ar.AsyncState;
cmd.EndExecuteNonQuery(ar);
cmd.Connection.Close();
}, command);
}
}
As you can see the lambda expression that is fired once the command is finished (no matter how long it takes) will do all the closing for you.

Is there a way to use TransactionScope with an existing connection?

I have some code that works like the advised use of TransactionScope, but has an ambient connection instead of an ambient transaction.
Is there a way to use a TransactionScope object with an existing connection, or is there an alternative in the .Net framework for this purpose?

In fact, there is one way.
connection.EnlistTransaction(Transaction.Current)
It works and it doesnt promote transaction to distributed if not necessary (contrary to what documentation says)
HTH

To enlist a connection into a TransactionScope, you need to specify 'Enlist=true' in its connection string and open the connection in the scope of that TransactionScope object.
You can use SqlConnection.BeginTransaction on an existing connection.
Update: Can you use BeginTransaction like this:
using (SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
{
connection.Open();
SqlCommand command = connection.CreateCommand();
SqlTransaction transaction;
// Start a local transaction.
transaction = connection.BeginTransaction("SampleTransaction");
// Must assign both transaction object and connection
// to Command object for a pending local transaction
command.Connection = connection;
command.Transaction = transaction;
...
...
}

After more research, the answer to my question turned out to be:
No, the connection needs to be opened after the TransactionScope object is instantiated.

Is there a way to create an ADO.NET connection and ignore the ambient Transaction?

I have a situation where I am running in a WCF service that has TransactionScopeRequired=true, which means there will always be an ambient transaction.
However, I need to start a new connection that will be around for the lifetime of the application, which means I can't have it use the abmbient transaction.
Any ideas on how to do this? Just doing this will automatically use the ambient transaction:
Assert.IsNotNull(System.Transactions.Transaction.Current);
var conn = new OracleConnection("my connection string");
conn.Open(); // <-- picks up ambient transaction, but I don't want that
Actually the example could be made simpler by saying this:
OracleConnection conn; // <-- this is actually held around in another object that has a very long lifetime, well past the TransactionScope.
using(var tx = new TransactionScope())
{
conn = new OracleConnection("my connection string");
conn.Open(); // <-- picks up ambient transaction, but I don't want that
// ... do stuff
}
I don't want my connection to actually pick up the TransactionScope. In the actual code there is a lot more going on that does do DB actions within the scope, I just have 1 that I need to keep around past the lifetime of the transaction scope.
I guess the real situation is worth mentioning. What actually happens here is that during a WCF service call, I add an object to a cache using the Enterprise Library Caching block. This object is a data table, but also holds on to an open connection to Oracle that has Continuous Notification set up. This gives me the ability to automatically refresh my cached dataset when the underlying Oracle tables change.
The data cache item can be accessed by any number of WCF initialized threads, all of which run in their own transaction scope. I guess you could think of it as putting an OracleConnection object in a cache. A better block of text/exampe code would be like:
//beginning of a WCF service call
using (var tx = new TransactionScope())
{
var conn = new OracleConnection();
var cmd = new OracleCommand();
// set up OCN on the cmd and connection
var reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
cache.Add("conn", conn);
cache.Add("cmd", cmd);
}
//beginning of a second wcf service call
using (var tx = new TransactionScope())
{
var conn = cache.Get("conn");
var cmd = cache.Get("cmd");
var reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
// user reader to reload some data
}
Point being I have a connection that has a long lifetime across multiple threads and transaction scopes.

Have you tried one of the TransactionScope constructors that allows you to set the scope? Setting the scope to "Requires New" creates a new transaction for your connection to enlist in. Setting the scope to "Suppress" makes it so that your connection doesn't enlist in any transaction. At least, thats how I read the documentation. I've never had that specific need, myself.
using(var tx = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
{
conn = new OracleConnection("my connection string");
conn.Open();
}