Thread: Basic question about structuring SQL

Basic question about structuring SQL

From
Robert Inder
Date:
I'm an experienced programmer but really new to SQL,
and I'm wanting a pointer to "the SQL way" to structure/organise chunks of code.

A while back, I wrote a chunk of SQL to Do Something Useful.
I put it in a file (do-something-useful.sql).
And, to protect against getting into a weird state, I wrapped the code in my file with
   BEGIN;
   UPDATE....
   DELETE...
   COMMIT;
With the idea that I can do
   psql my_database
   \i do-something-useful.sql
And be sure that either my task will be have been completed, or nothing with have changed.

NOW, I want to do the same for a BIGGER task.
BUT I realise that if I create bigger-task.sql like this...
   BEGIN;
      <<preparatory  operations>>
   \i do-something-useful.sql
      <<tidy up code>>
   COMMIT;
...the COMMIT inside "do-something-useful.sql" closes the transaction started in "bigger-task.sql"
So I can get some things committed even if other things (in tidy-up) fail.

So how SHOULD I tackle this?
PostgreSQL does not do nested transactions (right?)

So how should I structure my chunks of SQL so that I can have "safe" (all-or-nothing) blocks,
AND use them from within one another?

Robert

Re: Basic question about structuring SQL

From
Jason Wang
Date:
I don't think nested commit is supported however you might want to put logic in do-something-useful.sql into a stored procedure without commit and your BIGGER task just calls this SP and commits at the end; you can run the SP by itself to have transaction protected.

/Jason

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 21:41, Robert Inder <robert@interactive.co.uk> wrote:
I'm an experienced programmer but really new to SQL,
and I'm wanting a pointer to "the SQL way" to structure/organise chunks of code.

A while back, I wrote a chunk of SQL to Do Something Useful.
I put it in a file (do-something-useful.sql).
And, to protect against getting into a weird state, I wrapped the code in my file with
   BEGIN;
   UPDATE....
   DELETE...
   COMMIT;
With the idea that I can do
   psql my_database
   \i do-something-useful.sql
And be sure that either my task will be have been completed, or nothing with have changed.

NOW, I want to do the same for a BIGGER task.
BUT I realise that if I create bigger-task.sql like this...
   BEGIN;
      <<preparatory  operations>>
   \i do-something-useful.sql
      <<tidy up code>>
   COMMIT;
...the COMMIT inside "do-something-useful.sql" closes the transaction started in "bigger-task.sql"
So I can get some things committed even if other things (in tidy-up) fail.

So how SHOULD I tackle this?
PostgreSQL does not do nested transactions (right?)

So how should I structure my chunks of SQL so that I can have "safe" (all-or-nothing) blocks,
AND use them from within one another?

Robert



Re: Basic question about structuring SQL

From
"David G. Johnston"
Date:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 4:41 AM Robert Inder <robert@interactive.co.uk> wrote:
So how should I structure my chunks of SQL so that I can have "safe" (all-or-nothing) blocks,
AND use them from within one another?

While there are more advanced constructs that may aid here I would suggest just following two rules:

top-level scripts handle transactions - usually just a single BEGIN/COMMIT at the top/bottom of the script respectively.  These are scripts you are allowed to name on the psql command line.
support scripts don't handle transactions - these are scripts you include into the main script with \i or \ir

David J.