I accidentally ran into a situation that I didn't put Begin Transaction at the beginning of my stored procedure and just wrote Commit Transaction as you can see below
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.spTest
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #MyId INT=1
BEGIN TRY
UPDATE Test
SET
-- Id -- this column value is auto-generated
CharName = 'david'
WHERE id=4
--Just to test locking behavior
WHILE(1=1)
BEGIN
SET #MyId=2;
END
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
END CATCH
END
I expected SQL Server to give me a run time error but it didn't happen. Of course I should mention that based on my test it didn't acquire any lock on the table due to the lack of Begin Transaction but what is the point of COMMIT TRANSACTION and ROLLBACK TRANSACTION in such a condition and why didn't SQL Server raise any error?
Edit:
if i remove while block and put WaitFor Sql raise error when reaches to COMMIT TRANSACTION
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.spTest
AS
BEGIN
UPDATE Test
SET CharName = 'david'
WHERE id=4
PRINT 'waiting for a minute '
WAITFOR DELAY '00:00:10';
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END
Now i am receiving this error
The COMMIT TRANSACTION request has no corresponding BEGIN TRANSACTION
what is the point of COMMIT TRANSACTION and ROLLBACK TRANSACTION in such a condition?
There is no point in this case
and why didn't SQL Server raise any error?
I don't see any code that would raise an error. It would help if you could explain where and why you think an error should be raised
With regards to whatever you're actually doing here;
If the purpose of this proc is to hold a transaction open, you'd need something more like this:
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.spTest
AS
BEGIN
BEGIN TRANSACTION
UPDATE Test
SET CharName = 'david'
WHERE id=4
--Endless loop
WHILE(1=1)
BEGIN
PRINT 'waiting for a minute inside a transaction. Try something from another session'
WAITFOR DELAY '00:01';
END
-- Transaction will actually never be committed
-- Because this line will never be reached
-- because it's preceded by an endless loop
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END
The TRY / CATCH is a bit of a distraction. I've removed it.
I have come across the following T-SQL:
...
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END TRANSACTION
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
...
What is the difference between COMMIT and END transaction in this case?
END TRANSACTION doesn't exists in SQL Server T-SQL.
The only transaction commands available are BEGIN TRANSACTION, with an optional name, plus COMMIT and ROLLBACK, also with optional name.
END TRANSACTION will give you a syntax error.
I have the following TRANSACTION structure:
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN tran sometransaction
INSERT INTO local_table_1 (columns...)
SELECT (columns...)
FROM remote_table
WHERE (conditions, predicates)
UPDATE local_table_1
SET column_A = value
WHERE....
UPDATE local_table_1
SET column_B = value
WHERE....
UPDATE local_table_1
SET column_C = value
WHERE....
COMMIT tran sometransaction
END TRY
BEGIN catch
ROLLBACK tran sometransaction
END catch
I want to make sure that no one is allowed to read contents of local_table_1 unless all statements within this transaction are over and have been committed.
Is there a way to set WITH (TABLOCKX, HOLDLOCK) on the whole transaction? I understand that tables lock automatically during the transaction execution however I could not find any explanation if that extends on external concurrent read processes.
Thank you.
An external process will not read uncommitted transactions unless your external process is using a NOLOCK hint or READ UNCOMMITTED isolation. This is all related to Isolation in reference to the ACID properties of sql. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID
Set the transaction isolation level to READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ before you begin your transaction. The following link has a description and example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173763.aspx
1/ The following code snippet show me the expected error: The INSERT statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint FK_...
SET XACT_ABORT ON;
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT INTO linkedsrv1.db1.[dbo].tbl1 ([Col1], [Col2])
VALUES (1200, 0)
COMMIT TRANSACTION
2/ But when I put this in a BEGIN TRY/CATCH, the error message is vague: Msg 1206, Level 18, State 118, Line 18
The Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator (MS DTC) has cancelled the distributed transaction.
SET XACT_ABORT ON;
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRANSACTION
-- Error is on this line
INSERT INTO linkedsrv1.db1.[dbo].tbl1 ([IdWebsite], [IdProductType])
VALUES (1200, 0)
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
PRINT 'Error' -- Code not reached
SELECT ERROR_NUMBER(), ERROR_MESSAGE(), ERROR_SEVERITY(), ERROR_STATE()
IF XACT_STATE() != 0
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
END CATCH
Any idea why this happens?
Later edit:
It works in case I remove the unneeded explicit transaction. It is still not clear why I get this error when I put BEGIN/COMMIT TRAN.
I get the same error in case I have multiple inserts in multiple tables situated on linked server.
Any comment / remark is welcomed.
From MSDN:
SYMPTOMS
Consider the following scenario. You use the SQL Native Client OLE DB provider (SQLNCLI) in SQL Server 2005 to create a linked server. You create a distributed transaction. The distributed transaction contains a query that uses the linked server to retrieve data from a table. When you commit the distributed transaction, you may receive the following error message:
Msg 1206, Level 18, State 167, Line 3
The Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator (MS DTC) has cancelled
the distributed transaction.
Additionally, you may receive the following error message when you run a query after this behavior occurs:
Msg 8525, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session in a new
transaction or the NULL transaction.
This problem occurs if the following conditions are true:
You use the SQLNCLI provider to create a linked server between two
instances of SQL Server 2005.
The XACT_ABORT option is set to ON.
In the distributed transaction, you try to release a rowset before
all rows in the rowset are processed.
Note This problem may also occur if you call the ReleaseRows method in a distributed transaction to release a rowset before you commit a distributed transaction in an application.
CAUSE
This problem occurs because the SQLNCLI provider incorrectly sends an attention signal to the linked server to roll back the distributed transaction.
WORKAROUND
To prevent the SQLNCLI provider from sending an attention signal to the server, use the SQLNCLI provider to consume fully any rowsets that the OLE DB consumer creates.
Update
you need to configure 'remote proc trans' to "1" in server parameters.
Ex:
exec sp_configure 'remote proc trans','1'
reconfigure with override
This will permmit you to execute any distributed queries.
More Update
If you are using .Net framework in front end too, then I think you can use
TransactionScope Class. Remove transaction from query and put the Transaction in code level.
I have went to through this pain!
If you are performing any CRUD operation on a single table TRANSACTION is not needed.
In this case, the problem is, XACT_STATE() returns -1 because there is an error in the active transaction. But, ROLLBACK TRANSACTION fails, since there is NO transactions happened. You did only one transaction, INSERT, which failed, so there are no other transactions to rollback.
Its always better to relay on ##TRANCOUNT than XACT_STATE() (at least in this case).
to make it work, change like this(though I don't support TRAN for single table):
IF ##TRANCOUNT > 0
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
BEGIN TRANSACTION starts a distributed transaction between the server running the statements and the linked server, since potentially you can run updates against both servers. When the INSERT fails it needs to cancel the distributed transaction, thus the error you are getting. So you have to handle errors on two levels (insert and transaction). In this scenario, you'll need two TRY/CATCH blocks as follows:
SET XACT_ABORT ON;
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRANSACTION
BEGIN TRY
-- Error is on this line
INSERT INTO linkedsrv1.db1.[dbo].tbl1 ([IdWebsite], [IdProductType])
VALUES (1200, 0)
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
SELECT 'Insert Error', ERROR_NUMBER(), ERROR_MESSAGE(), ERROR_SEVERITY(), ERROR_STATE()
RAISERROR (15600,-1,-1, 'INSERT ERROR');
END CATCH
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
SELECT 'Transaction Error', ERROR_NUMBER(), ERROR_MESSAGE(), ERROR_SEVERITY(), ERROR_STATE()
IF XACT_STATE() != 0
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
END CATCH
I need to lock a row in a table so no one can read this line while I'm running a procedure. I am using BEGIN TRAN in this procedure. So, this record I'm trying to block is uncommitted during the process.
Is it possible?
Depending on what is the purpose of your stored procedure:
- In case it modifies the mentioned row, you can base on transaction levels
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRANSACTION
--UPDATE/INSERT/DELETE your row here
...
COMMIT TRANSACTION
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ
- Use lock hints
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT column1, column2
FROM yourTable WITH (ROWLOCK)
WHERE ID = YourRecordId
...
COMMIT TRANSACTION
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ