Re: isolation level serializable

From: Chuck <skilover_nospam_at_bluebottle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:00:29 GMT
Message-ID: <1WhMh.15776$1a6.14606@trnddc08>

xhoster_at_gmail.com wrote:

> Laurenz Albe <invite_at_spam.to.invalid> wrote:
>> Chuck <skilover_nospam_at_bluebottle.com> wrote:

>>> I have a stored procedure that copies a bunch of tables from one schema
>>> to another using "execute immediate 'insert...' " and code that looks
>>> something like this...
>>>
>>> for i in (select table_name from ....)
>>> loop
>>> stmt := 'insert into s1.'||table_name;
>>> stmt := stmt||' (select * from s2.'||table_name')';
>>> execute immediate stmt;
>>> end loop;
>>>
>>> Some of the tables have FK relationships between them on both the
>>> source and destination schemas. The procedure uses a similar loop early
>>> on to disable all constraints on the destination tables, and another
>>> later to enable them again after the inserts are done. The constraints
>>> stay enabled the entire time on the source tables.
>>>
>>> The problem is that I am getting FK constraint violations when I try to
>>> enable the constraints on the destination tables. I thought I could
>>> eliminate this by using a serializable isolation level for the
>>> transaction. According to the manual, this will cause all queries to
>>> look at a snapshot of the source tables from the same point in time, so
>>> I execute this before the first insert.
>>>
>>> commit;
>>> set transaction isolation level serializable;

> 
> I don't like that.  Each transaction should commit or rollback itself when
> it is done.  I don't think it should be committed implicitly by the start
> of some other transaction.

That's precisely what I am doing. The commit is only there because prior to bulk of the inserts is another insert into a log table. It just says "I'm at such and such point in the procedure". Prior to that was a bunch of truncates which do implicit comiits. If I don't commit at this point, the "set transaction" will fail because it must be the first command of the transaction.

>>> Then I do another commit at the end of the last insert. There are no
>>> commits, rollbacks, DDL, or any other SQL between the inserts, however
>>> I still get FK violations at the end when I try enable the constraints.
>>> Why?

> 
> To know why, it would help to know what.  What is the problem that is
> causing the violation?  

As stated in the OP, it is a foreign key constraint violation on one the destination tables. A child row has no parent.

> Are you absolutely sure that the corresponding > constraint is in place and enabled and set to validate on the source table?

Yes. Absolutely.

> Is your process the only one that writes into the s1 schema or can other > people be messing around with it at the same time as you are?

My session is the only one that has access to the s1 schema. Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 17:00:29 CDT