According to postgresql docs;
CREATE DATABASE cannot be executed inside a transaction block.
Is there a technical reason for this?
When you try it, you get the error:
ERROR: CREATE DATABASE cannot run inside a transaction block
This comes from src/backend/access/transam/xact.c (line 3023 on my sources, but varies by version), in PreventTransactionChain(...).
The comment there explains that:
This routine is to be called by statements that must not run inside
a transaction block, typically because they have non-rollback-able
side effects or do internal commits.
For CREATE DATABASE it's called from src/backend/tcop/utility.c in standard_ProcessUtility under the case for T_CreatedbStmt, but unfortunately there isn't any informative comment that says why specifically CREATE DATABASE isn't safe to run in a transaction.
Looking at the sources, I can see that for one thing it forces a checkpoint.
Overall, though, I don't see anything that really screams out "we can't do this transactionally". It's more "we haven't implemented the functionality to do this transactionally".
It's conceptual reason: files creation has no relation to DB transaction and there is no guaranty that during the rollback they will be deleted.
Related
Is it possible to create a warning message in a trigger in Firebird 2.5?
I know I can create an exception message which will stop the user from saving the record changes, but in this instance I don't mind if the user continues.
Could I call a procedure that generates the message?
There is no mechanism in Firebird to produce warnings in PSQL code, you can only raise exceptions, which in triggers will result in the effect of the executed statement that fired the trigger to be undone.
In short, this is not possible.
There are workarounds possible, but those would require 'external' protocols, like, for example, inserting the warning message into a global temporary table, requiring the calling code to explicitly select from that temporary table after execution.
SQL model does provide putting query on pause and then waiting for extra input from client to either unfreeze it or fail it. SQL is not user-interactive service and there is no confirmation dialogs. You have to rethink your application design.
One possible avenue, nominally staying withing 2-tier client-server framework, would be creating temporary tabless for all the data you want to save (for example transaction-scope GTTs), and then have TWO stored procedures. One SP would be sanity-checking and returning list of warnings, if any. Another SP then would dump the data from GTTs to main, persistent tables without doing those checks.
Your client app would select warnings from the check-SP first, if it returns any then show them to the user, then either call save-SP and commit, or rollback without calling save-SP.
This is abusing C/S idea, so there would be dragons. First of all, you would have to have several GTTs and two SPs for E-V-E-R-Y pausable data saving in your app. And that can be a lot.
Also, notice, that database data may change after you called check-SP and before you called save-SP. Becuse some OTHER application running elsewhere could be changing and committing data during that pause. Especially if you transaction was of READ COMMMITTED kind. But with SNAPSHOT tx too.
Better approach would be to drop C/S scheme and go to 3-tier model, AKA multi-tier, AKA "Application Server". That way your client app sends the "briefcase" of data to the app-server, it would be app-server (not SQL triggers) doing all the data validation, and then it would be saving it to data storage backend, SQL or any other.
There, of course, still would be that problem, that data could had been changed by other users, why you paused one user and waited him to read and decide. But you would have more flexibility in app-server on data reconcilation, than you would have with plain SQL.
As far as I know, we can't use start transaction within functions, thus we can't use COMMIT and ROLLBACK in functions.
But how then we ROLLBACK by some if-condition?
How then we can perform a sequence of statements in a specific level of isolation? I mean a situation when an application wants to call a SQL (plpgsql) function and that function really needs to be run in a transaction with a certain isolation level. What to do in such a case?
In which cases then it is really practical to run ROLLBACK? Only when we manually write a script, check something and then ROLLBACK manually if we don't like the result. And in the same case, I see the practicality of savepoints. However, I feel like it is a serious constraint.
If you want to rollback the complete transaction, RAISE an exception.
If you only want to roll back part of your work, start a new block with a BEGIN at the point to which you want to roll back and add an EXCEPTION clause to the block.
Since the transaction is started outside the function, the isolation level already has to be set properly when you are in the function.
You can query
SELECT current_setting('transaction_isolation', TRUE);
and throw an error if the setting is not correct.
is too general or too simple to answer.
You roll back a transaction if you have reached a point in your processing where you want to undo everything you have done so far in the transaction.
Often, that happens implicitly rather than explicitly by throwing an error.
Let me open by saying: yes, I am aware of Determine if a transaction is active (Postgres)
Unfortunately the sole answer to that question is far too specific to the use case provided, and doesn't actually indicate whether or not a transaction is active.
The select txid_current(); trick suggested by How to check for pending operations in a PostgreSQL transaction doesn't appear to work - I always get the same transaction ID from adjacent calls to that function. Possibly this is because I'm trying to test it from pgAdmin, which is transparently starting transactions...? (Note: I don't actually care whether there are any pending changes or active locks, so looking at pg_locks isn't helpful - what if nothing's been touched since the transaction was started?)
So: How can I determine in PostgreSQL PL/pgSQL code if a transaction is currently active?
One possible use case is: the SP/FN in question will be doing its own explicit transaction management, and calling it with a transaction already active will greatly interfere with that. I want to raise an error so that the coding mistake of calling this SP/FN in a transaction can be corrected.
There are other use cases, though.
Ideally what I'm looking for is an equivalent to MSSQL's ##TRANCOUNT (though I don't really care how deeply the transactions may be nested...)
Postgres runs PL/pgSQL inside the transaction. Thus you can't control transaction from inside PL/pgSQL. Code will look like:
begin;
select plpgsql_fn();
do '/*same any plpgsql*/';
end;
So answering your question:
If you have PL/pgSQL running ATM, you have your transaction active ATM...
Of course you can do some trick, like starting/ending work over dblink or such. but then you can check select txid_current(); over the dblink successfully...
If you want to determine if there have been any data modifications in your transaction, call txid_current_if_assigned(). It returns NULL if nothing has been modified yet.
If you only want to know if you are inside some transaction, you can save yourself the trouble, because you always are.
Before PostgreSQL v11, you cannot use transaction control statements in a function.
I haven't found a clean way to do that, but you can always call BEGIN and if it succeeds it means there is no transaction in progress (don't forget to rollback). If it fails with "there is already a transaction in progress" this means you are within transaction (better not to rollback then).
I know about prepared transaction in Postgres, but seems you can just commit or rollback it later. You cannot even view the transaction's db state before you've committed it. Is any way to save transaction for later use?
What I want to achieve actually is a preview (and correcting) of some changes in db (changes are imports from csv file, so user need to see preview before apply it). I want to make changes, add some changes later, see full state of db and apply it (certainly, commit transaction)
I cannot find a very good reference in docs, but I have a very strong feeling that the answer is: No, you cannot do that.
It would mean that when you "save" the transaction, the database would basically have to maintain all of its locks in place for an indefinite amount of time. Even if it was possible, it would mean horrible failure modes and trouble on all fronts.
For the pattern that you are describing, I would use two separate transactions. Import to a staging table and show that to user (or import to the main table but mark rows as "unapproved"). If user approves, in another transactions move or update these rows.
You can always end up in a situation where user can simply leave or crash without clicking "OK" or "Cancel". If what you're describing was possible, you would end up with a hung transaction holding all these resources. In my proposed solution you end up with wasteful rows in "staging" table that you may still show to user later or remove.
You may want to read up on persistence saga. This is actually a very simple example of a well known and researched problem.
To make the long story short, this pattern breaks down a long-running process like yours into smaller operations that are applied and persisted in some way in separate transactions. If any of them happens to fail (or does not occur as expected), you have compensating actions that usually undo what the steps executed so far have done (e.g. by throwing away stale/irrelevant data).
Here's a decent introduction:
https://blog.couchbase.com/saga-pattern-implement-business-transactions-using-microservices-part/#:~:text=The%20SAGA%20Pattern,completion%20of%20the%20previous%20one.
http://vasters.com/clemensv/2012/09/01/Sagas.aspx
This concept was formally introduced in the 80s, but is well alive and relevant today.
I am using the Play! framework, and have a difficulty with in the following scenario.
I have a server process which has a 'read-only' transaction. This to prevent any possible database lock due to execution as it is a complicated procedure. There are one or two record to be stored, but I do that as a job, as I found doing them in the main thread could result in a deadlock under higher load.
However, in one occasion I need to create an object and subsequently use it.
However, when I create the object using a Job, wait for the resulting id (with a Promise return) and then search in the database for it, it cannot be found.
Is there an easy way to have the JPA search 'afresh' in the DB at this point? I implemented a 5 sec. pause to test, so I am sue it is not because the procedure hadn't finished yet.
Check if there is a transaction wrapped around your INSERT and if there is one check that the transaction is COMMITed.