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:
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!
A connection pool is created for each unique connection string. When a pool is created, multiple connection objects are created and added to the pool so that the minimum pool size requirement is satisfied. Connections are added to the pool as needed, up to the maximum pool size specified (100 is the default).
Serializable. This is the highest isolation level and prevents all possible types of concurrency phenomena in SQL Server, but on the other hand, the serializable level decreases performance and increases the likelihood of deadlocks.
InnoDB offers all four transaction isolation levels described by the SQL:1992 standard: READ UNCOMMITTED , READ COMMITTED , REPEATABLE READ , and SERIALIZABLE .
To check the isolation level(s) present in the statement, the simplest way is to look at the T-SQL itself and see if any hints are present. If not, it is operating at the isolation level of the connection.
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.
In SQL Server 2014 this seem to have been fixed. If using TDS protocol 7.3 or higher.
Running on SQL Server version 12.0.2000.8 the output is:
ReadCommitted Serializable ReadCommitted
Unfortunately this change is not mentioned in any documentation such as:
But the change has been documented on a Microsoft Forum.
Unfortunately this was later "unfixed" in SQL Server 2014 CU6 and SQL Server 2014 SP1 CU1 since it introduced a bug:
FIX: The transaction isolation level is reset incorrectly when the SQL Server connection is released in SQL Server 2014
"Assume that you use the TransactionScope class in SQL Server client-side source code, and you do not explicitly open the SQL Server connection in a transaction. When the SQL Server connection is released, the transaction isolation level is reset incorrectly."
It appears that, since passing through a parameter makes the driver use sp_executesql
, this forces a new scope, similar to a stored procedure. The scope is rolled back after the end of the batch.
Therefore, to avoid the leak, pass through a dummy parameter, as show below.
using (var conn = new SqlConnection(connString)) using (var comm = new SqlCommand(@" SELECT transaction_isolation_level FROM sys.dm_exec_sessions where session_id = @@SPID ", conn)) { conn.Open(); Console.WriteLine(comm.ExecuteScalar()); } using (var conn = new SqlConnection(connString)) using (var comm = new SqlCommand(@" SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT; SELECT transaction_isolation_level FROM sys.dm_exec_sessions where session_id = @@SPID ", conn)) { comm.Parameters.Add("@dummy", SqlDbType.Int).Value = 0; // see with and without conn.Open(); Console.WriteLine(comm.ExecuteScalar()); } using (var conn = new SqlConnection(connString)) using (var comm = new SqlCommand(@" SELECT transaction_isolation_level FROM sys.dm_exec_sessions where session_id = @@SPID ", conn)) { conn.Open(); Console.WriteLine(comm.ExecuteScalar()); }
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With