I have a chunk of SQL code that has the following format:
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON
// Insert or Update Statement #1
GO
// Insert or Update Statement #2
GO
IF ##TRANCOUNT > 0 COMMIT TRAN
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS OFF
My question: is statement 1 in the same transaction as statement 2 (but that they are in different batches)? I'd believe so based on my reading on Google but I'd like some second opinions.
Thanks!
It depends.
If the both statements are either one of the following :
ALTER TABLE
FETCH
REVOKE
BEGIN TRANSACTION
GRANT
SELECT
CREATE
INSERT
TRUNCATE TABLE
DELETE
OPEN
UPDATE
DROP
then the answer is yes.
Because if the connection is already in an open transaction, the above statements do not start a new transaction.
If, however, Statement 2 is BEGIN TRANSACTION then it will cause two nested transactions to open.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187807(v=sql.100).aspx
And the GO command is just a batch separator , it doesn't start a new transaction.
A transaction can be wrapped around multiple batches.
Related
I have a complex script that contains many stored procedures and I need to do a rollback in all cases.
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO Table1 VALUES(1);
INSERT INTO Table2 VALUES(2);
EXEC storedprocedure1
EXEC storedprocedure2
....
ROLLBACK;
I have not checked all stored procedures inside (if there is or not other transaction).
I ask if there is a way to rollback the entire script (stored procedures included) independently by presence of other transaction inside the stored procedures.
Thanks!
(Assuming SQL Server)
There is no need to check inside those stored procedures.
The ROLLBACK will rollback all the way to the outer-most transaction, including rolling-back all transactions within storedprocedure1 and storedprocedure2, even if those nested transactions are committed within those procedures.
Selecting ##TRANCOUNT will show you that any ROLLBACK sets the transaction count of the session back to 0.
So if you rollback the outer transaction, anyone who may be expecting those nested transactions to commit is going to be disappointed.
I faced one problem in this query execution on Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
CREATE DATABASE myDB
USE myDB
CREATE TABLE udata(uid INT PRIMARY KEY identity(101, 2),
uname VARCHAR(25), unum INT UNIQUE)
CREATE TABLE usalary(sid INT PRIMARY KEY identity(1, 1),
salary NUMERIC(18, 0), FKuid INT REFERENCES udata(uid))
INSERT INTO udata VALUES ('yogesh', 99)
INSERT INTO udata VALUES ('tejas', 88)
INSERT INTO usalary VALUES (15000, 103)
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SAVE TRANSACTION SP1
DELETE FROM udata WHERE uid = 1
COMMIT;
ROLLBACK to SP1
SELECT * FROM udata WHERE uid=1
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SAVE TRANSACTION SP2
TRUNCATE TABLE usalary
COMMIT
ROLLBACK to SP2
SELECT * FROM usalary
here when we commit the transaction it should be saved in database but after rollback the data will come back.How's that possible??
Here my question is simple.
in SQL documentation it is mentioned that after commiting any query or transaction we can not rollback.(we can not get our previous state of database.)
like if we create savepoint a and perform delete query on our database and explicitly give commit.
the documentation say that we can't rollback from this state but if i execute rollback command here I get my data back.
The whole series of command(query) is mentioned here for ease who wants to help from create database command to rollback command.
For a query like this:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SAVE TRAN t1
DELETE FROM udata;
COMMIT;
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION t1
You will get an error: The ROLLBACK TRANSACTION request has no corresponding BEGIN TRANSACTION.. Sure, no rollback after a commit.
But if you try to wrap it in another transaction:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SAVE TRAN t1
DELETE FROM udata;
COMMIT;
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION t1
COMMIT
This will work fine. Why? documentation on Nesting Transactions says:
Committing inner transactions is ignored by the SQL Server Database Engine. The transaction is either committed or rolled back based on the action taken at the end of the outermost transaction.
My guess here is: either your not posting whole query here and there is a BEGIN TRANSACTION statement somewhere else or you have been testing transactions inside Management Studio and somewhere along the way you executed BEGIN TRANSACTION without matching ROLLBACK or COMMIT. In the later case, try to execute single ROLLBACK statement until you get an error. You can also just restart Management Studio.
I have a stored procedure which is called inside a trigger on Insert/Update/Delete.
The problem is that there is a certain code block inside this SP which is not critical.
Hence I want to ignore any erros arising from this code block.
I inserted this code block inside a TRY CATCH block. But to my surprise I got the following error:
The current transaction cannot be committed and cannot support operations that write to the log file. Roll back the transaction.
Then I tried using SAVE & ROLLBACK TRANSACTION along with TRY CATCH, that too failed with the following error:
The current transaction cannot be committed and cannot be rolled back to a savepoint. Roll back the entire transaction.
My server version is: Microsoft SQL Server 2008 (SP2) - 10.0.4279.0 (X64)
Sample DDL:
IF OBJECT_ID('TestTrigger') IS NOT NULL
DROP TRIGGER TestTrigger
GO
IF OBJECT_ID('TestProcedure') IS NOT NULL
DROP PROCEDURE TestProcedure
GO
IF OBJECT_ID('TestTable') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE TestTable
GO
CREATE TABLE TestTable (Data VARCHAR(20))
GO
CREATE PROC TestProcedure
AS
BEGIN
SAVE TRANSACTION Fallback
BEGIN TRY
DECLARE #a INT = 1/0
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION Fallback
END CATCH
END
GO
CREATE TRIGGER TestTrigger
ON TestTable
FOR INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE
AS
BEGIN
EXEC TestProcedure
END
GO
Code to replicate the error:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT INTO TestTable VALUES('data')
IF ##ERROR > 0
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
ELSE
COMMIT TRANSACTION
GO
I was going through the same torment, and I just solved it!!!
Just add this single line at the very first step of your TRIGGER and you're going to be fine:
SET XACT_ABORT OFF;
In my case, I'm handling the error feeding a specific table with the batch that caused the error and the error variables from SQL.
Default value for XACT_ABORT is ON, so the entire transaction won't be commited even if you're handling the error inside a TRY CATCH block (just as I'm doing). Setting its value for OFF will cause the transaction to be commited even when an error occurs.
However, I didn't test it when the error is not handled...
For more info:
SET XACT_ABORT (Transact-SQL) | Microsoft Docs
I'd suggest re-architecting this so that you don't poison the original transaction - maybe have the transaction send a service broker message (or just insert relevant data into some form of queue table), so that the "non-critical" part can take place in a completely independent transaction.
E.g. your trigger becomes:
CREATE TRIGGER TestTrigger
ON TestTable
FOR INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE
AS
BEGIN
INSERT INTO QueueTable (Col1,Col2)
SELECT COALESCE(i.Col1,d.Col1),COALESCE(i.Col2,d.Col2) from inserted i,deleted d
END
GO
You shouldn't do anything inside a trigger that might fail, unless you do want to force the transaction that initiated the trigger action to also fail.
This is a very similar question to Why try catch does not suppress exception in trigger
Also see the answer here T-SQL try catch transaction in trigger
I don’t think you can use savepoints inside a trigger. I mean, you can but I googled about it and I saw a few people saying that they don’t work. If you replace your “save transaction” for a begin transaction, it compiles. Of course it is not necessary because you have the outer transaction control and the inner rollback would rollback everything.
This:
use test;
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
EXEC sp_RENAME 'table1.asd' , 'ads', 'COLUMN';
INSERT INTO table1 (ads) VALUES (12);
COMMIT
is a simple example that demonstrates what I would like to do.
I want to alter the table in some way and perform inserts/deletes in one transaction (or other modifications to the table).
The problem is that the results from sp_RENAME are never immediately visible to the INSERT statement. I've played with different transaction isolation levels - it's always the same (therefore the transaction never commits).
Normally I would just use GO statements for this to be in separate batches, but I need that in one batch, because...
My real task is to write a script that adds identity and FK to a table (this requires creating another table with the new schema, performing identity inserts from the old one, renaming the table and applying constraints). I need to play it safe - if any part of the procedure fails I have to rollback the whole transaction. This is why I wanted to do something like this:
BEGIN TRAN
--some statement
IF (##ERROR <> 0) GOTO ERR_HANDLER
-- some other statement
IF (##ERROR <> 0) GOTO ERR_HANDLER
COMMIT TRAN
RETURN 0
ERR_HANDLER:
PRINT 'Unexpected error occurred!'
ROLLBACK TRAN
RETURN 1
Since labels work only inside a batch I cannot use GO statements.
So how can I:
make statements(ie. ALTER TABLE, sp_RENAME) have an immediate effect ?
or
write the whole solution some other way so that it is safe to run in production DB ?
The issue is that the parsing of the batch fails when it encounters the reference to the renamed column so the entire batch never gets executed - not that the effects of the transaction are not visible.
You can put your statements referencing the new name of the column in an EXEC('') block to defer compilation until after the column is renamed.
EXEC sp_rename 'table1.asd' , 'ads', 'COLUMN';
EXEC('INSERT INTO table1 (ads) VALUES (12);')
I have needs to keep some of log data in different tables even my transaction is rolled back.
I already learned that in SQL Server it is impossible do something like this
begin tran t1
insert ...
insert ...
select ...
begin tran t2
insert into log
commit tran t2
rollback tran t1
select * from log -- IS EMPTY ALWAYS
So I try hacking SQL Server that I madded CLR which is going to export data need for LOG to local server disk in XML format. CLR Code is simple as it can be:
File.WriteAllText(fileName, xmlLog.Value.ToString());
Before I release this in production bases Ill love to hear your toughs about this technique.
Here are few questions:
Is there other better way to accomplish autonomous transaction in SQL Server 2005
How can be bad holding my transaction uncommitted while SQL Server is executing CLR (amount of data written by SQL is relative small about 50 - 60 records of 3 integers and 4 floats)
I would suggest using a Table Variable as it is not affected by the Transaction (this is one of the methods listed in the blog noted by Martin below the question). Consider doing this, which will work in SQL Server 2005:
DECLARE #TempLog TABLE (FieldList...)
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRAN
INSERT...
INSERT INTO #TempLog (FieldList...) VALUES (#Variables or StaticValues...)
INSERT...
INSERT INTO #TempLog (FieldList...) VALUES (#Variables or StaticValues...)
COMMIT TRAN
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
IF (##TRANCOUNT > 0)
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRAN
END
/* Maybe add a Log message to note that we ran into an error */
INSERT INTO #TempLog (FieldList...) VALUES (#Variables or StaticValues...)
END CATCH
INSERT INTO RealLogTable (FieldList...)
SELECT FieldsList
FROM #TempLog
Please note that while we are making use of the fact that Table Variables are not part of the transaction, that does create a potential situation where this code does a COMMIT but errors (or server crashes) before the INSERT INTO RealLogTable and you will have lost the logging for the data that did make it in. At this point there would be a disconnect as there is data but no record of it being inserted as far as RealLogTable is concerned. But this is just the obvious trade-off for being able to bypass the Transaction.