Afaik, although I'm pretty new to Postgres, Before-triggers are less expensive then After-triggers.
After all, if you want to change the current record (using NEW), you can change the record before it is written. In contrast, with After-triggers you need two writes: 1 verbatim write and 1 as a result of the after-trigger.
At the same time, all functionality that is available in after-triggers seems to be available in before-triggers. If I'm not mistaken.
So why would you ever use After-triggers to begin with?
If you're changing the record upon which the trigger is acting use a BEFORE trigger. If you're doing some complex logic that may prevent the record from being changed, use a BEFORE trigger.
Almost anything else, use an AFTER trigger. An example might be where you're inserting child records which rely upon the primary key of a record being inserted. For example, if you're adding an entry to a history table for a newly inserted row. The parent row won't exist in the BEFORE trigger, so would fail foreign key checks.
Related
Is there a way of knowing that a table's data has changed (insert/update/delete) without using a trigger on that table? Perhaps a global trigger to indicate changes on a table?
If you want notification of changes, you will need to add a trigger yourself. Firebird 3 added a new feature to simplify identifying changed rows, the pseudo-column RDB$RECORD_VERSION. This pseudo-column contains the transaction that created the current version of a row.
Alternatively, you could try and use the trace facility to monitor for changes, but that is not an out of the box solution, as you will need to write the necessary logic to parse the trace output (and take things like transaction commit/rollback into account).
What is the order that RULEs fire when applied to an INSERT?
Are they done AFTER or BEFORE the record is inserted.
What I am trying to do is create a new record in another table, which will link to the record that was INSERTed.
Take for example; To make a rule that will creating a new page, when a document is created, so that a document will always start with an empty page record.
I have looked high and low, and maybe I'm asking Google the wrong question, but I cannot find any documentation about the order of execution for RULES.
Quote from the manual
Multiple rules on the same table and same event type are applied in alphabetical name order.
So the ordering does not depend on the type of the rule, only on the name.
And it also explains how the rule is "applied"
It is important to realize that a rule is really a command transformation mechanism, or command macro. The transformation happens before the execution of the command starts.
Emphasis mine
So the rule doesn't happen "before" or "after" a statement runs - it runs instead of that statement.
What I am trying to do is create a new record in another table, which will link to the record that was INSERTed.
You definitely want an AFTER INSERT trigger for that. Forget about rules.
Which is also what the manuals recommends:
If you actually want an operation that fires independently for each physical row, you probably want to use a trigger, not a rule
This question is sort of a follow up to this question, but it's different enough of a topic that I feel like it merits it's own discussion. For a bit of background, you can refer to it.
As a part of a new file importing system, I am building an audit system based on this wiki page. But, one of the things that I would like to include in the audit trail is the file name of the file that the data came from (these files are archived for long term storage so if there are questions, I can always go back).
One way I could go it is to create a import_batch record and record the name of the file there and then just stamp records when they update. Which is the path that I'm going down. But, it feels a bit clunky in a way. I'm been pondering the idea of trying to have the audit trigger be able to get the import_batch_id without it having to be in the NEW.* record. It seems like to me there are at least a couple of ways I might be able to accomplish this.
I could have a function that could create a temp table and store any information in it that I want (such as batch # or file name or whatever). This seem pretty clean and as I understand it would only live for the duration of the transaction. And as I understand it, it wouldn't have to worry about naming collisions. Each transaction would have a temp file named "tmp_import_info".
If I only care about the import_batch_id (which has a seq), I could probably just get the current value of the sequencer. I'm not a 100% sure how this would behave in a multi-user setting. I would think it would be possible for trans#1 to create import_batch_id #222 and then trans#2 to start and get #223. And then my audit trail would record the wrong data.
Are there other options that I'm not seeing here? Is there a way to add a transaction/session variable? Basically, something like pg_settings (but, that does allow for inserts, updates and deletes of values).
It feels like the best option might be the temp table.
The main good news for variant 2. is - quoting the manual here:
currval
Return the value most recently obtained by nextval for this sequence in the current session. (An error is reported if nextval has never been called for this sequence in this session.) Because this is returning a session-local value, it gives a predictable answer whether or not other sessions have executed nextval since the current session did.
Store your import file names in a table with a serial primary key. You can refer to your last value from the sequence with currval or lastval. Concurrent users cannot interfere. As long as you don't foil this path inside your own transaction yourself, this is safe.
In our production org, we have a system of uploading sales data into Salesforce using command line data loader. This data is loaded into a temporary object Temp. We have created a formula field (which combines three fields) to form a unique key. The purpose of the object is to reduce user efforts for creating the key manually.
There is an after insert trigger on Temp which calls an asynchronous method which upserts the data to another object SalesData using the key. The insert/update trigger on SalesData checks the various fields and creates/updates the records in another object SalesRecords. After the insertion/updation is complete, all the records in temp object Temp are deleted. The SalesRecords object does not have any trigger on it and is a child of another object Sales. The Sales object has some rollup fields which are summing up fields from SalesRecords object.
Lately, we are getting the below error for some of the records which are updated.
UNABLE_TO_LOCK_ROW, unable to obtain exclusive access to this record
Please provide some pointers to resolve the issue
this could either be caused by conflicting DML operations in the various trigger execution or some recursive trigger execution. i would assume that the async executions cause multiple subsequent updates on the same records, probably on the SalesRecords object. I would recommend to try to simplify the process to avoid too many related trigger executions.
I'm a little surprised you were able to get this to work in the first place. After triggers should be used with caution and only when before triggers can't be. One reason for this is that you don't need to perform additional DML to make changes to records, since in before triggers you simply change the values and the insert/update commit happens automatically. But recursive trigger firings is the main problem with after triggers.
One quick way to avoid trigger re-entry is to use a public static Boolean in a class that states whether you're already in this trigger from the same thread of execution.
Something like:
public static Boolean isExecuting = false;
Once set to true, any trigger code that is a re-fire can be avoided with:
if(Class.isExecuting == false)
{
Class.isExecuting = true;
// Perform trigger logic
// ...
}
Additionally, since the order of trigger execution cannot be determined up front, you might be seeing an issue with deletions or other data changes that depend on other parts of your flow to finish first.
Also, without knowing the details of your custom unique 3-part key, I'd wonder if there's a problem there too such as whether it's truly unique or not. Case insensitivity is a common mistake and it's the reason there are 15 AND 18 character Ids in Salesforce. For example, when people export to Excel (a case-insensitive environment) and do VLOOKUPs, they would occasionally find the wrong record. The 3-digit calculated suffix was added to disambiguate for case-insensitive environments.
Googling for this same error lead me to this post:
http://boards.developerforce.com/t5/General-Development/Unable-to-obtain-exclusive-access-to-this-record/td-p/345319
Which points out some common causes for this to happen:
Sharing Rules are being calculated.
A picklist value has been replaced and replacement is in progress.
A custom index creation/removal is in progress.
Most unlikely one - someone else is already editing the same record that you are trying to access at the same time.
Posting here in case somebody else needs it.
I got this error multiple times today. Turned out one of our vendors was updating their installed package during that time in the same org. All kinds of things were going wrong also - some object validation exceptions were being thrown on DMLs, without any error message content.
Resolution
The error is shown when a field update such as a roll-up summary field is being attempted on a parent object that already had a field update to cause the roll-up summary field to calculate. This could also occur if a trigger or another apex job running on the master object and it also attempting to do an update.
You can either reduce the batch size and try again or create separate smaller files to be imported if this issue occurs.
We've got a set of forms in our web application that is managed by multiple staff members. The forms are common for all staff members. Right now, we've implemented a locking mechanism. But the issue is that there's no reliable way of knowing when a user has logged out of the system, so the form needs to be unlocked. I was wondering if there was a better way to manage concurrent users editing the same data.
You can use optimistic concurrency which is how the .Net data libraries are designed. Effectively you assume that usually no one will edit a row concurrently. When it occurs, you can either throw away the changes made, or try and create some nicer retry logic when you have two users edit the same row.
If you keep a copy of what was in the row when you started editing it and then write your update as:
Update Table set column = changedvalue
where column1 = column1prev
AND column2 = column2prev...
If this updates zero rows, then you know that the row changed during the edit and you can then deal with it, or simply throw an error and tell the user to try again.
You could also create some retry logic? Re-read the row from the database and check whether the change made by your user and the change made in the database are able to be safely combined, then do so automatically. Or you could present a choice to the user as to whether they still wish to make their change based on the values now in the database.
Do something similar to what is done in many version control systems. Allow anyone to edit the data. When the user submits the form, the database is checked for changes. If the record has not been changed prior to this submission, allow it as usual. If both changes are the same, ignore the incoming (now redundant) change.
If the second change is different from the first, the record is now in conflict. The user is presented with a new form, which indicates which fields were changed by the conflicting update. It is then the user's responsibility to resolve the conflict (by updating both sets of changes), or to allow the existing update to stand.
As Spence suggested, what you need is optimistic concurrency. A standard website that does no accounting for whether the data has changed uses what I call "last write wins". Simply put, whichever connection saves to the database last, that version of the data is the one that sticks. In optimistic concurrency, you use a "first write wins" logic such that if two connections try to save the same row at the same time, the first one that commits wins and the second is rejected.
There are two pieces to this mechanism:
The rules by which you fail the second commit
How the system or the user handles the rejected commit.
Determining whether to reject the commit
Two approaches:
Comparison column that changes each time a commit happens
Compare the data with its committed version in the database.
The first one entails using something like SQL Server's rowversion data type which is guaranteed to change each time the row changes. The upside is that it makes it simple to roll your own logic to determine if something has changed. When you get the data, you pull the rowversion column's value and when you commit, you compare that value with what is currently in the database. If they are different, the data has changed since you last retrieved it and you should reject the commit otherwise proceed to save the data.
The second one entails comparing the columns you pulled with their existing committed values in the database. As Spence suggested, if you attempt the update and no rows were updated, then clearly one of the criteria failed. This logic can get tricky when some of the values are null. Many object relational mappers and even .NET's DataTable and DataAdapter technology can help you handle this.
Handling the rejected commit
If you do not leave it up to the user, then the form would throw some message stating that the data has changed since they last edited and you would simply re-retrieve the data overwriting their changes. As you can imagine, users aren't particularly fond of this solution especially in a high volume system where it might happen frequently.
A more sophisticated (and also more complicated) approach is to show the user what has changed allow them to choose which items to try to re-commit, Behind the scenes you would retrieve the data again, overwrite the values picked by the user with their entries and try to commit again. In high volume system, this will still be problematic because by the time the user has tried to re-commit, the data may have changed yet again.
The checkout concept is effectively pessimistic concurrency where users "lock" rows. As you have discovered, it is difficult to implement in a stateless environment. Users are notorious for simply closing their browser while they have something checked out or using the Back button to return a set that was checked out and try to recommit it. IMO, it is more trouble than it is worth to try go this route in a web-based solution. Assuming you write the user name that last changed a given row, with optimistic concurrency, you can inform the user whose changes are rejected who saved the data before them.
I have seen this done two ways. The first is to have a "checked out" column in your database table associated with that data. Your service would have to look for this flag to see if it is being edited. You can have this expire after a time threshold is met (with a trigger) if the user doesn't commit changes. The second way is having a dedicated "checked out" table that stores id's and object names (probably the table name). It would work the same way and you would have less lookup time, theoretically. I see concurrency issues using the second method, however.
Why do you need to look for session timeout? Just synchronize access to your data (forms or whatever) and that's it.
UPDATE: If you mean you have "long transactions" where form is locked as soon as user opens editor (or whatever) and remains locked until user commits changes, then:
either use optimistic locking, implement it by versioning of forms data table
optimistic locking can cause loss of work, if user have been away for a long time, then tried to commit his changes and discovered that someone else already updated a form. In this case you may want to implement explicit "locking" of form, where user "locks" form as soon as he starts work on it. Other user will notice that form is "locked" and either communicate with lock owner to resolve issue, or he can "relock" form for himself, loosing all updates of first user in process.
We put in a very simple optimistic locking scheme that works like this:
every table has a last_update_date
field in it
when the form is created
the last_update_date for the record
is stored in a hidden input field
when the form is POSTED the server
checks the last_update_date in the
database against the date in the
hidden input field.
If they match,
then no one else has changed the
record since the form was created so
the system updates the data.
If they don't match, then someone else has
changed the record since the form was
created. The system sends the user back to the form edit page and tells the user that someone else edited the record and they must reapply their changes.
It is very simple and works well enough.
You can use "timestamp" column on your table. Refer: What is the mysterious 'timestamp' datatype in Sybase?
I understand that you want to avoid overwriting existing data with consecutively updates.
If so, when the user opens a screen you have to get last "timestamp" column to the client.
After changing data just before update, you should check the "timestamp" columns(yours and db) to make sure if anyone has changed tha data while he is editing.
If its changed you will alert an error and he has to startover. If it is not, update the data. Timestamp columns updated automatically.
The simplest method is to format your update statement to include the datetime when the record was last updated. For example:
UPDATE my_table SET my_column = new_val WHERE last_updated = <datetime when record was pulled from the db>
This way the update only succeeds if no one else has changed the record since the last read.
You can message to the user on conflict by checking if the update suceeded via a SELECT after the UPDATE.