Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
177 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

tsql - SQL Server: Isolation level leaks across pooled connections

As demonstrated by previous Stack Overflow questions (TransactionScope and Connection Pooling and How does SqlConnection manage IsolationLevel?), the transaction isolation level leaks across pooled connections with SQL Server and ADO.NET (also System.Transactions and EF, because they build on top of ADO.NET).

This means, that the following dangerous sequence of events can happen in any application:

  1. A request happens which requires an explicit transaction to ensure data consistency
  2. Any other request comes in which does not use an explicit transaction because it is only doing uncritical reads. This request will now execute as serializable, potentially causing dangerous blocking and deadlocks

The question: What is the best way to prevent this scenario? Is it really required to use explicit transactions everywhere now?

Here is a self-contained repro. You will see that the third query will have inherited the Serializable level from the second query.

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        RunTest(null);
        RunTest(IsolationLevel.Serializable);
        RunTest(null);
        Console.ReadKey();
    }

    static void RunTest(IsolationLevel? isolationLevel)
    {
        using (var tran = isolationLevel == null ? null : new TransactionScope(0, new TransactionOptions() { IsolationLevel = isolationLevel.Value }))
        using (var conn = new SqlConnection("Data Source=(local); Integrated Security=true; Initial Catalog=master;"))
        {
            conn.Open();

            var cmd = new SqlCommand(@"
select         
        case transaction_isolation_level 
            WHEN 0 THEN 'Unspecified' 
            WHEN 1 THEN 'ReadUncommitted' 
            WHEN 2 THEN 'ReadCommitted' 
            WHEN 3 THEN 'RepeatableRead' 
            WHEN 4 THEN 'Serializable' 
            WHEN 5 THEN 'Snapshot' 
        end as lvl, @@SPID
     from sys.dm_exec_sessions 
    where session_id = @@SPID", conn);

            using (var reader = cmd.ExecuteReader())
            {
                while (reader.Read())
                {
                    Console.WriteLine("Isolation Level = " + reader.GetValue(0) + ", SPID = " + reader.GetValue(1));
                }
            }

            if (tran != null) tran.Complete();
        }
    }
}

Output:

Isolation Level = ReadCommitted, SPID = 51
Isolation Level = Serializable, SPID = 51
Isolation Level = Serializable, SPID = 51 //leaked!
Question&Answers:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

The connection pool calls sp_resetconnection before recycling a connection. Resetting the transaction isolation level is not in the list of things that sp_resetconnection does. That would explain why "serializable" leaks across pooled connections.

I guess you could start each query by making sure it's at the right isolation level:

if not exists (
              select  * 
              from    sys.dm_exec_sessions 
              where   session_id = @@SPID 
                      and transaction_isolation_level = 2
              )
    set transaction isolation level read committed

Another option: connections with a different connection string do not share a connection pool. So if you use another connection string for the "serializable" queries, they won't share a pool with the "read committed" queries. An easy way to alter the connection string is to use a different login. You could also add a random option like Persist Security Info=False;.

Finally, you could make sure every "serializable" query resets the isolation level before it returns. If a "serializable" query fails to complete, you could clear the connection pool to force the tainted connection out of the pool:

SqlConnection.ClearPool(yourSqlConnection);

This is potentially expensive, but failing queries are rare, so you should not have to call ClearPool() often.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...