Let's assume we use autocommit mode, i.e.
By default (without BEGIN), PostgreSQL executes transactions in
"autocommit" mode, that is, each statement is executed in its own
transaction and a commit is implicitly performed at the end of the
statement (if execution was successful, otherwise a rollback is done).
Then with read committed isolation level (by default in postgresql too), the statement is the actual isolation unit. But here the statement only means outer statement? What about the statements embedded in the same outer statement?
CTE (With queries)
I test some cases, it seems that the main query and all WITH queries share the same transaction snapshot, although some query may happen after the other due to dependency.
with a as
(
statements...
),
b as (
statements depends on a, e.g. from a,
)
main query
if during the whole query running, new transaction committed, should any (sub-)query here see new data?
statements in trigger function
It's easy to test and know that each statement within the trigger function satisfy the read committed isolation level rules, i.e. each statement would see data from all committed transactions just before it start execution.
outer dml statement ----trigger---> foobar()
statement1
statement2
....
if some other transaction committed after statement1, the statement2 would see the new data.
subquery
Consider the subquery in WHERE part, it's hard to test if each execution of subquery would see new data from other committed transactions, because the subquery would be converted into join by optimizer mostly.
select * from foo where col1 > any(select col1 from bar where ....);
If some other transaction committed after the second run of subquery, which modified table bar, does the third run of subquery see the new data?
I haven't read the source codes of postgresql according to this topic, does anybody know the answer?
I ask the question in pgsql-general mailing list:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAAc9rOz1TMme7NTb3NkvHiPjX0ckmC5UmFhadPdmXkmxagco7w#mail.gmail.com#CAAc9rOz1TMme7NTb3NkvHiPjX0ckmC5UmFhadPdmXkmxagco7w#mail.gmail.com
And I find the answer now:
for all the cases (trigger, CTE, other sub-query), as long as
they use function written in PL, marked as VOLATILE (by default), then
each query contained in the function may see new data.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/xfunc-volatility.html
STABLE and IMMUTABLE functions use a snapshot established as of the
start of the calling query, whereas VOLATILE functions obtain a fresh
snapshot at the start of each query they execute.
Related
I'm trying to translate an SQL Server transaction from a textbook into PostgreSQL. The original transaction is
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT INTO Customers(cust_id,cust_name) VALUES('1000000010','Toys Emporium');
SAVE TRANSACTION StartOrder;
INSERT INTO Orders(order_num,order_date,cust_id) VALUES(20100,'1999/12/1','1000000010');
IF ##ERROR <> 0 ROLLBACK TRANSACTION StartOrder;
[additional inserts with same rollback omitted]
COMMIT TRANSACTION
But I keep getting response
ERROR: syntax error at or near "IF"
LINE 1: IF ##ERROR <> 0 THEN
^
PostgreSQL has the best architecture for developing SQL codes. So, inside the function, you can not use transaction commit or start. Transactions work only inside the procedures. But, you can create your best ACID structure only by using functions. Because the function begin keyword is equivalent to start transaction command and the end keyword of the function is equivalent to commit transaction command. One function = One transaction. But if you need to use one transaction for inserting data into two tables, you can use your insert functions for the same tables inside the one function. In this variant, your main function will be your main transaction. Inside the main function, if one of the internal functions will have an exception so, other internal functions will be rollbacked. For example, we use sub-functions and sub-sub functions inside the main function. If one of the sub-sub functions will have exceptions then your main function will be rollbacked. Using this mechanism you will control your transactions fully, without any problems.
I wrote your query in PostgreSQL, Example:
begin transaction;
INSERT INTO Customers(cust_id,cust_name) VALUES('1000000010','Toys Emporium');
savepoint StartOrder;
commit;
INSERT INTO Orders(order_num,order_date,cust_id) VALUES(20100,'1999/12/1','1000000010');
commit;
exception when others then
rollback to StartOrder;
commit;
Postgres 13.4
I've got some pg_cron jobs set up to periodically delete older records out of log-like files. What I'd like to do is to run VACUUM ANALYZE after performing a purge. Unfortunately, I can't work out how to do this in a stored function. Am I missing a trick? Is a stored procedure more appropriate?
As an example, here's one of my purge routines
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION dba.purge_event_log (
retain_days_in integer_positive default 14)
RETURNS int4
AS $BODY$
WITH -- Use a CTE so that we've got a way of returning the count easily.
deleted AS (
-- Normal-looking code for this requires a literal:
-- where your_dts < now() - INTERVAL '14 days'
-- Don't want to use a literal, SQL injection, etc.
-- Instead, using a interval constructor to achieve the same result:
DELETE
FROM dba.event_log
WHERE dts < now() - make_interval (days => $1)
RETURNING *
),
----------------------------------------
-- Save details to a custom log table
----------------------------------------
logit AS (
insert into dba.event_log (name, details)
values ('purge_event_log(' || retain_days_in::text || ')',
'count = ' || (select count(*)::text from deleted)
)
)
----------------------------------------
-- Return result count
----------------------------------------
select count(*) from deleted;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE sql;
COMMENT ON FUNCTION dba.purge_event_log (integer_positive) IS
'Delete dba.event_log records older than the day count passed in, with a default retention period of 14 days.';
The truth is, I don't really care about the count(*) result from this routine, in this case. But I might want a result and an additional action in some other, similar context. As you can see, the routine deletes records, uses a CTE to insert a report into another table, and then returns a result. No matter what, I figure this example is a good way to get me head around the alternatives and options in stored functions. The main thing I want to achieve here is to delete records, and then run maintenance. if this is an awkward fit for a stored function or procedure, I could write out an entry to a vacuum_list table with the table name, and have another job to run though that list.
If there's a smarter way to approach vacuum without the extra, I'm of course interested in that. But I'm also interested in understanding the limits on what operationa you can combine in PL/PgSQL routines.
Pavel Stehule' answer is correct and complete. I decided to follow-up a bit here as I like to dig in on bugs in my code, behaviors in Postgres, etc. to get a better sense of what I'm dealing with. I'm including some notes below for anyone who finds them of use.
COMMAND cannot be executed...
The reference to "VACUUM cannot be executed inside a transaction block" gave me a better way to search the docs for similarly restricted commands. The information below probably doesn't cover everything, but it's a start.
Command Limitation
CREATE DATABASE
ALTER DATABASE If creating a new table space.
DROP DATABASE
CLUSTER Without any parameters.
CREATE TABLESPACE
DROP TABLESPACE
REINDEX All in system catalogs, database, or schema.
CREATE SUBSCRIPTION When creating a replication slot (the default behavior.)
ALTER SUBSCRIPTION With refresh option as true.
DROP SUBSCRIPTION If the subscription is associated with a replication slot.
COMMIT PREPARED
ROLLBACK PREPARED
DISCARD ALL
VACUUM
The accepted answer indicates that the limitation has nothing to do with the specific server-side language used. I've just come across an older thread that has some excellent explanations and links for stored functions and transactions:
Do stored procedures run in database transaction in Postgres?
Sample Code
I also wondered about stored procedures, as they're allowed to control transactions. I tried them out in PG 13 and, no, the code is treated like a stored function, down to the error messages.
For anyone that goes in for this sort of thing, here are the "hello world" samples of sQL and PL/PgSQL stored functions and procedures to test out how VACCUM behaves in these cases. Spoiler: It doesn't work, as advertised.
SQL Function
/*
select * from dba.vacuum_sql_function();
Fails:
ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function
CONTEXT: SQL function "vacuum_sql_function" statement 1. 0.000 seconds. (Line 13).
*/
DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS dba.vacuum_sql_function();
CREATE FUNCTION dba.vacuum_sql_function()
RETURNS VOID
LANGUAGE sql
AS $sql_code$
VACUUM ANALYZE activity;
$sql_code$;
select * from dba.vacuum_sql_function(); -- Fails.
PL/PgSQL Function
/*
select * from dba.vacuum_plpgsql_function();
Fails:
ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function
CONTEXT: SQL statement "VACUUM ANALYZE activity"
PL/pgSQL function vacuum_plpgsql_function() line 4 at SQL statement. 0.000 seconds. (Line 22).
*/
DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS dba.vacuum_plpgsql_function();
CREATE FUNCTION dba.vacuum_plpgsql_function()
RETURNS VOID
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $plpgsql_code$
BEGIN
VACUUM ANALYZE activity;
END
$plpgsql_code$;
select * from dba.vacuum_plpgsql_function();
SQL Procedure
/*
call dba.vacuum_sql_procedure();
ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function
CONTEXT: SQL function "vacuum_sql_procedure" statement 1. 0.000 seconds. (Line 20).
*/
DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS dba.vacuum_sql_procedure();
CREATE PROCEDURE dba.vacuum_sql_procedure()
LANGUAGE SQL
AS $sql_code$
VACUUM ANALYZE activity;
$sql_code$;
call dba.vacuum_sql_procedure();
PL/PgSQL Procedure
/*
call dba.vacuum_plpgsql_procedure();
ERROR: VACUUM cannot be executed from a function
CONTEXT: SQL statement "VACUUM ANALYZE activity"
PL/pgSQL function vacuum_plpgsql_procedure() line 4 at SQL statement. 0.000 seconds. (Line 23).
*/
DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS dba.vacuum_plpgsql_procedure();
CREATE PROCEDURE dba.vacuum_plpgsql_procedure()
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $plpgsql_code$
BEGIN
VACUUM ANALYZE activity;
END
$plpgsql_code$;
call dba.vacuum_plpgsql_procedure();
Other Options
Plenty. As I understand it, VACUUM, and a handful of other commands, are not supported in server-side code running within Postgres. Therefore, you code needs to start from somewhere else. That can be:
Whatever cron you've got in your server's OS.
Any exteral client you like.
pg_cron.
As we're deployed on RDS, those last two options are where I'll look. And there's one more:
Let AUTOVACCUM and an occasional VACCUM do their thing.
That's pretty easy to do, and seems to work fine for the bulk of our needs.
Another Idea
If you do want a bit more control and some custom logging, I'm imagining a table like this:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS dba.vacuum_list (
database_name text,
schema_name text,
table_name text,
run boolean,
run_analyze boolean,
run_full boolean,
last_run_dts timestamp)
ALTER TABLE dba.vacuum_list ADD CONSTRAINT
vacuum_list_pk
PRIMARY KEY (database_name, schema_name, table_name);
That's just a sketch. The idea is like this:
You INSERT into vacuum_list when a table needs some vacuuming, at least as far as you're concerned.
In my case, that would be an UPSERT as I don't need a full log-like table, just a single row per table of interest with the last outcome and/or pending state.
Periodically, a remote client, etc. connects, reads the table, and executes each specified VACUUM, according to the options specified in the record.
The external client updates the row with the last run timestamp, and whatever else you're including in the row.
Optionally, you could include fields for duration and change in relation size pre:post vacuuming.
That last option is what I'm interested in. None of our VACUUM calls were working for quite some time as there was a months-old dead connection from something sever-side. VACUUM appears to run fine, in such a case, it just can't delete a whole lot of rows. (Because of the super old "open" transaction ID, visibility maps, etc.) The only way to see this sort of thing seems to be to VACUUM VERBOSE and study the output. Or to record vacuum time and, more important, relation size change to flag cases where nothing seems to happen, when it seems like it should.
VACUUM is "top level" command. It cannot be executed from PL/pgSQL ever or from any other PL.
Given....
CREATE PROCEDURE NotaRandomUpdate (#table1_id INT, #new_value INT)
AS
BEGIN
begin transaction
UPDATE Table1
SET field1 = #new_value
WHERE id = #table1_id
INSERT INTO Table2 VALUE(#new_value)
end transaction
END
In the above (very) simplified situation, if there are 2 seperate TRIGGERS, one on each of Table1 & Table2, which trigger would execute 1st?
I'm looking to take the combined result of the full transaction (with information not referenced in the transaction itself) and save that combined result eleswhere - so I need to bring data from the join of Table1=>Table2 out.
If Table1-Trigger executes 1st, then I'm faced with not having data needed (at that instance) from Table2.
If Table2-Trigger executes 1st, then I'm faced with not having data needed (at that instance) from Table1.
I presume the triggers only execute during/after the commit phase....or are they executed immediately the Table1-update & Table-insert statements are executed and thus the overall database updates are wrapped up inside the full transaction?
This is due to happen in a DB2 database.
Is a solution possible?.
Or am I faced with running a "some time later" activity (like pre-EOD) which executes a query which joins the 2 tables after all relevent updates (for that day) have been completed, providing of course that each of Table1 & Table2 have some timestamp columns that can be tracked.
end
Any relevant triggers for Table1 will fire before any relevant triggers on Table2 , assuming no rollback.
Db2 triggers execute with Insert or Update or Delete statements, whether per-row or per-statement. Hence the statements inside trigger body will only run (assuming trigger is valid) during execution of the triggering statement. Commit will not invoke trigger logic.
Each of your Insert/Update/Delete statements that executes will execute any relevant valid triggers during execution of that statement before execution of the next statement will begin.
I've got an app built on top of PostgresQL, which makes use of a custom sequence. I think I understand sequences pretty well by now: they are non-transactional, currval is defined only within the current session, etc. But I don't understand this:
2015-10-13 10:37:16 SQLSelect: SELECT nextval('commit_id_seq')
2015-10-13 10:37:16 commit_id_seq: 57
2015-10-13 10:37:16 SQLExecute: UPDATE bid SET is_archived=false,company_id=1436,contact_id=15529,...(etc)...,sharing_policy='' WHERE id = 56229
2015-10-13 10:37:16 ERROR: ERROR: currval of sequence "commit_id_seq" is not yet defined in this session
CONTEXT: SQL statement "INSERT INTO history (table_name, record_id, sec_user_id, created, action, notes, status, before, after, commit_id)
SELECT TG_TABLE_NAME, rec.id, (SELECT id FROM sec_user WHERE name = CURRENT_USER), now(), SUBSTR(TG_OP,1,1), note, stat, oldH, newH, currval('commit_id_seq')"
PL/pgSQL function log_to_history() line 28 at SQL statement
[3]
We log every call to the database, and in the case of the SELECT nextval, I also log the result. The above are the exact calls, except that I trimmed the UPDATE statement (because the original is really long).
So, you can see that we just called nextval on the sequence, got a reasonable number back, and then we do an UPDATE that invokes a trigger function that attempts to use currval on that sequence... and it fails, claiming currval is not defined.
Note that this doesn't usually happen, but once it does start happening, it does so consistently (perhaps until the user disconnects from the DB).
How can this be? And what can I do about it?
Your UPDATE statement obviously calls a trigger. The most plausible cause of this error is that the trigger function is in a different schema from where the sequence is defined and the schema of the sequence is not in the search_path. That gives you two options to resolve this:
Make the schema of the sequence visible to the trigger function using SET search_path TO .... Note that this will make all objects in the schema of the sequence visible, which may be something of a security risk, depending on your database design.
Schema-qualify the sequence name in the trigger function: currval('my_schema.commit_id_seq').
Another plausible cause is connection pooling at your application end. Log the "session ID" (really just the starting time and pid of the current session) by adding %c to your log_line_prefix() parameter in postgresql.conf. In PostgreSQL every command runs in its own transaction unless a transaction is explicitly established. Connection pooling software also works at the transaction level (i.e. you start a transaction and then your connection will stay open until you close it, outside of a transaction there are no guarantees about session persistence). If that is the case you can wrap your entire set of commands in a BEGIN ... COMMIT block (you should probably use a specific call from your pooling software), or better yet, change your code to not depend on a previous nextval() call.
Is a PostgreSQL function such as the following automatically transactional?
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION refresh_materialized_view(name)
RETURNS integer AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
_table_name ALIAS FOR $1;
_entry materialized_views%ROWTYPE;
_result INT;
BEGIN
EXECUTE 'TRUNCATE TABLE ' || _table_name;
UPDATE materialized_views
SET last_refresh = CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
WHERE table_name = _table_name;
RETURN 1;
END
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE SECURITY DEFINER;
In other words, if an error occurs during the execution of the function, will any changes be rolled back? If this isn't the default behavior, how can I make the function transactional?
PostgreSQL 12 update: there is limited support for top-level PROCEDUREs that can do transaction control. You still cannot manage transactions in regular SQL-callable functions, so the below remains true except when using the new top-level procedures.
Functions are part of the transaction they're called from. Their effects are rolled back if the transaction rolls back. Their work commits if the transaction commits. Any BEGIN ... EXCEPT blocks within the function operate like (and under the hood use) savepoints like the SAVEPOINT and ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT SQL statements.
The function either succeeds in its entirety or fails in its entirety, barring BEGIN ... EXCEPT error handling. If an error is raised within the function and not handled, the transaction calling the function is aborted. Aborted transactions cannot commit, and if they try to commit the COMMIT is treated as ROLLBACK, same as for any other transaction in error. Observe:
regress=# BEGIN;
BEGIN
regress=# SELECT 1/0;
ERROR: division by zero
regress=# COMMIT;
ROLLBACK
See how the transaction, which is in the error state due to the zero division, rolls back on COMMIT?
If you call a function without an explicit surounding transaction the rules are exactly the same as for any other Pg statement:
BEGIN;
SELECT refresh_materialized_view(name);
COMMIT;
(where COMMIT will fail if the SELECT raised an error).
PostgreSQL does not (yet) support autonomous transactions in functions, where the procedure/function could commit/rollback independently of the calling transaction. This can be simulated using a new session via dblink.
BUT, things that aren't transactional or are imperfectly transactional exist in PostgreSQL. If it has non-transactional behaviour in a normal BEGIN; do stuff; COMMIT; block, it has non-transactional behaviour in a function too. For example, nextval and setval, TRUNCATE, etc.
As my knowledge of PostgreSQL is less deeper than Craig Ringer´s I will try to give a shorter answer: Yes.
If you execute a function that has an error in it, none of the steps will impact in the database.
Also, if you execute a query in PgAdmin the same happen.
For example, if you execute in a query:
update your_table yt set column1 = 10 where yt.id=20;
select anything_that_do_not_exists;
The update in the row, id = 20 of your_table will not be saved in the database.
UPDATE Sep - 2018
To clarify the concept I have made a little example with non-transactional function nextval.
First, let´s create a sequence:
create sequence test_sequence start 100;
Then, let´s execute:
update your_table yt set column1 = 10 where yt.id=20;
select nextval('test_sequence');
select anything_that_do_not_exists;
Now, if we open another query and execute
select nextval('test_sequence');
We will get 101 because the first value (100) was used in the latter query (that is because the sequences are not transactional) although the update was not committed.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-structure.html
It is important not to confuse the use of BEGIN/END for grouping statements in PL/pgSQL with the similarly-named SQL commands for transaction control. PL/pgSQL's BEGIN/END are only for grouping; they do not start or end a transaction. Functions and trigger procedures are always executed within a transaction established by an outer query — they cannot start or commit that transaction, since there would be no context for them to execute in. However, a block containing an EXCEPTION clause effectively forms a subtransaction that can be rolled back without affecting the outer transaction. For more about that see Section 39.6.6.
In the function level, it is not transnational. In other words, each statement in the function belongs to a single transaction, which is the default db auto commit value. Auto commit is true by default. But anyway, you have to call the function using
select schemaName.functionName()
The above statement 'select schemaName.functionName()' is a single transaction, let's name the transaction T1, and so the all the statements in the function belong to the transaction T1. In this way, the function is in a single transaction.
Postgres 14 update: All statements written in between the BEGIN and END block of a Procedure/Function is executed in a single transaction. Thus, any errors arising while execution of this block will cause automatic roll back of the transaction.
Additionally, the ATOMIC Transaction including triggers as well.