c# - 这个共享的 DbCommand 对象线程安全吗？

Question

我不明白为什么每次需要调用存储过程时都必须创建一个 DbCommand 对象。所以我试图想出一种方法来做到这一点。我已经测试了我的代码(见下文)。但我想与社区核实一下，以防我遗漏了什么。我会在 ASP.NET 应用程序中使用它。这段代码线程安全吗？

SharedDbCommand - 包装了 DbCommand 对象的创建和存储

Db - 数据库的包装器，通过静态字段和 ThreadStatic 属性使用 SharedDbCommand

程序 - 启动线程并使用 Db 对象的控制台应用程序

// SharedDbCommand.cs

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Configuration;
using System.Data.Common;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
using System.Data;

namespace TestCmdPrepare {
    public class SharedDbCommand {
        [ThreadStatic]
        static DbCommand cmd;

        public SharedDbCommand(string procedureName, ConnectionStringSettings dbConfig) {
            var factory = DbProviderFactories.GetFactory(dbConfig.ProviderName);
            cmd = factory.CreateCommand();
            cmd.Connection = factory.CreateConnection();
            cmd.Connection.ConnectionString = dbConfig.ConnectionString;
            cmd.CommandText = procedureName;
            cmd.CommandType = System.Data.CommandType.StoredProcedure;
            if (cmd is SqlCommand) {
                try {
                    cmd.Connection.Open();
                    SqlCommandBuilder.DeriveParameters(cmd as SqlCommand);
                } finally {
                    if (cmd != null && cmd.Connection != null) 
                        cmd.Connection.Close();
                }
            }
        }

        public DbParameter this[string name] {
            get {
                return cmd.Parameters[name];
            }
        }

        public IDataReader ExecuteReader() {
            try {
                cmd.Connection.Open();
                return cmd.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
            } finally {
                cmd.Connection.Close();
            }
        }

        public void ExecuteNonQuery() {
            try {
                cmd.Connection.Open();
                cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
            } finally {
                cmd.Connection.Close();
            }
        }
    }
}

// Db.cs

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Configuration;
using System.Data.Common;
using System.Data;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
using System.Threading;
using System.Diagnostics;

namespace TestCmdPrepare {
    public class Db {
        ConnectionStringSettings dbSettings;
        DbProviderFactory factory;
        public Db() {
            dbSettings = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["db"];
            factory = DbProviderFactories.GetFactory(dbSettings.ProviderName);
        }
        IDataReader ExecuteReader(DbCommand cmd) {
            cmd.Connection.Open();
            return cmd.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
        }

        private DbConnection CreateConnection() {
            var c = factory.CreateConnection();
            c.ConnectionString = dbSettings.ConnectionString;
            return c;
        }

        DbCommand CreateCommand(string procedureName) {
            var cmd = factory.CreateCommand();
            cmd.Connection = CreateConnection();
            cmd.CommandText = "get_stuff";
            cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
            if (cmd is SqlCommand) {
                try {
                    cmd.Connection.Open();
                    SqlCommandBuilder.DeriveParameters(cmd as SqlCommand);
                } finally {
                    cmd.Connection.Close();
                }
            }
            return cmd;
        }


        [ThreadStatic]
        static DbCommand get_stuff;

        DbCommand GetStuffCmd {
            get {
                if (get_stuff == null)
                    get_stuff = CreateCommand("get_stuff");
                return get_stuff;
            }
        }

        public string GetStuff(int id) {
            GetStuffCmd.Parameters["@id"].Value = id;
            using (var reader = ExecuteReader(GetStuffCmd)) {
                if (reader.Read()) {
                    return reader.GetString(reader.GetOrdinal("bar"));
                }
            }
            return null;
        }

        [ThreadStatic]
        static SharedDbCommand get_stuff2;
        public string GetStuff2(int id) {
            if (get_stuff2 == null)
                get_stuff2 = new SharedDbCommand("get_stuff", dbSettings);
            get_stuff2["@id"].Value = id;
            using (var reader = get_stuff2.ExecuteReader()) {
                if (reader.Read()) {
                    Thread.Sleep(1000);
                    return reader.GetString(reader.GetOrdinal("bar"));
                }
            }
            return null;
        }
    }
}


// Program.cs

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Data.Common;
using System.Configuration;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
using System.Threading;

namespace TestCmdPrepare {
    class Program {
        static void Main(string[] args) {
            var db = new Db();
            var threads = new List<Thread>();
            for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
                var one = new Thread(Run2);
                var two = new Thread(Run1);

                threads.Add(one);
                threads.Add(two);
                one.Start();
                two.Start();

                Write(db, 1);
                Write(db, 2);
            }
            Console.WriteLine("Joining");
            foreach (var thread in threads) {
                thread.Join();
            }
            Console.WriteLine();
            Console.WriteLine("DONE");
            Console.ReadLine();
            return;
        }

        static void Write(Db db, int id) {


       Console.WriteLine("2:{0}:{1}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, db.GetStuff2(id));
        Console.WriteLine("1:{0}:{1}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, db.GetStuff(id));
    }

    static void Run1() {
        var db = new Db();
        Write(db, 1);
    }

    static void Run2() {
        var db = new Db();
        Write(db, 2);
    }

    }
}

Answer 1

出于很多原因，这是个坏主意。其他人已经提到了其中的一些，但我会给你一个特定于你的实现的:在 ASP.NET 中使用 ThreadStatic 将最终让你失望(参见 here )。您无法控制管道，因此可能多个线程最终为一个请求提供服务(考虑页面上的事件处理程序等——有多少代码不是您的？) .由于未处理的异常，在您不拥有的请求线程上孤立数据也很容易。可能不是一个引人注目的问题，但最好的情况是您正在查看内存泄漏和增加的服务器资源使用，而您的连接就在那里......

我建议您只让 ConnectionPool 完成它的工作 - 它有一些缺点，但与 ASP.NET 管道中发生的其他事情相比，性能不是其中之一。如果您真的想这样做，至少考虑将连接对象存储在 HttpContext.Current.Items 中。您可能可以在有限的情况下完成这项工作，但总会有陷阱，尤其是当您开始编写并行代码时。

去过那里的人只需 0.02 美元。 :)