I accidentally included the word "data" in a SQL script I wrote and now am not sure what this does. Can someone tell me what the following script would actually do if the Rollback transaction were not set?
Begin Transaction
data
Rollback Transaction
I think "Data" is in the future reserved keyword list in our SQl Server. But I'm not sure if this is why the script runs without error.
Begin Transaction
data
Rollback Transaction
Not sure what happened. The script ran correctly
You are aliasing the transaction as data
Without the rollback you would just have an open transaction called data
according to my knowledge and the keywords for SQL Server, disponible here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/pt-br/sql/t-sql/language-elements/reserved-keywords-transact-sql?view=sql-server-2017
there is no meaning for data word, but it could be an abbreviation for database, or it could just be a bug
Related
I executed a simple SQL performance query to retrieve the sessions running currently in the database in Oracle sql developer.
But accidentally my cursor clicked on the roll back icon and it got rolled back.
Could you please tell me What happens to the entire database after this?
Rolling back a select does nothing as long as you didn't make changes to the database without committing the transaction.
In oracle clients when you run a query that modifies the database, the query is first run. Another step is then needed to commit the transaction.
MS SQL Server has a similar concept where you can do safe transactions like
begin tran
delete from table where val > 5
rollback{commit}
This allows you to look at the number of records your SQL statement have done prior to committing the transaction. If you want you can choose to rollback or commit your transaction.
What exactly did you roll back? That "simple SQL performance query", or "sessions running currently in the database in Oracle SQL Developer"?
If former, nothing happened, SELECT didn't do any changes anyway. If it were SELECT ... FOR UPDATE, lock would have been released.
If latter, then any changes you did in the database since previous COMMIT were rolled back (as you didn't roll back to a savepoint), so - nothing happened either.
What happens to the entire database after this?
It returned to state it was in earlier, as if you didn't touch anything at all.
I am using a C# class that is calling a SQL stored procedure in a serializable transaction.
So if something goes wrong in the stored procedure, everything is rolled back.
I have one statement in the SQL stored procedure that should be always executed (even if the stored procedure fails at some point and a rollback occurs). The statement is an update of a record.
I cannot change the C# library, so I need to do this in my stored procedure.
Is there some way I can execute that one statement outside the transaction?
You could perhaps use SAVE TRANSACTION. It is not supported in distributed transactions, and your statement must be executed first, so it might not be what you are looking for.
I have found the solution.
I didn't realize that SQL knew it was called in a transactional matter by the c# class.
The update statement that should always be executed is the first step (and also last step) in the procedure. Let me clarify:
I have an IF function. If it is true, the update should occur no matter what. If it is false, some transactional logic should be executed.
Now in the c# class, it expects a result from the stored proc. If the proc doesn't return a result (like it does in the update statement), it rollbacks the transaction.
So by just adding the following lines right after the update statement, the update occurs :)
IF ##TRANCOUNT > 0
BEGIN
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END
Your solution does not sound like a good one.. For example- if your stored procedure will be part of bigger transaction, then it will commit all changes made before it. Also I believe no one would guess that your proc has such behaviour without first seeing code.
The need to always execute some part of proc sounds like need for security audit. So maybe you should use trace, extended events or sql server audit instead.
if you really need what you say you need- you can use method described here: How to create an autonomous transaction in SQL Server 2008
I'm using MS SQL Server 2005 enterprise edition. I executed an update query to get affect a record in a row and a column.
update HS_SM_USERACCOUNT
set ACCOUNTPOLICYTYPE=1
where EMP_NUMBER='000540' and USERID='03510410#'
Earlier the column called ACCOUNTPOLICYTYPE is holding value 1 for that particular condition in WHERE clause. Now I want to get the previous state without executing Update Query again.
Will ROLLBACK help me? Please help me on this.
No. It's changed. If you want to know what it was, restore from backup
Unless you executed the above query within the scope of a TRANSACTION - i.e. within BEGIN TRAN / COMMIT / ROLLBACK TRAN block, the ROLLBACK command is going to be of no use.
There is nothing you can do to get back the state that you updated with the above statement in such a situation except RESTORE an OLD backup of that table data
Question:
Normally, you can undo a sql command with rollback.
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRANSACTION
/* run all your SQL statements */
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
END CATCH
My question now:
If 'one' did this
UPDATE TABLE_X SET FIELD_X = 'bla'
GO
in SSMS (notice the go at the end) and forgot to specify the WHERE clause,
is it possible (and how) to rollback the implicit transaction that SSMS executed this command in (statements with go at the end are implicitly executed in a transaction) ?
Note:
I didn't do that, but a colleague of mine did a few days ago (without go).
I undid the damage he did (fortunately I made a backup 0.5 hours before he did that), but for the future, it would be good to know this, because this happened to me once, too.
No, you can't, not easily. Restoring from backup is the best option.
see the link below, I think it will help you
How to recover the old data from table
thanks
Arun
GO does not specify the end of an implicit transaction, but the end of a batch. That's why you won't be able (unfortunately) to ROLLBACK your UPDATE after a GO.
From the MSDN page on GO:
GO is not a Transact-SQL statement; it is a command recognized by the
sqlcmd and osql utilities and SQL Server Management Studio Code
editor.
SQL Server utilities interpret GO as a signal that they should send
the current batch of Transact-SQL statements to an instance of SQL
Server. The current batch of statements is composed of all statements
entered since the last GO, or since the start of the ad hoc session or
script if this is the first GO.
The UPDATE command will only be seen as the start of an implicit transaction if you have specified SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON; (see here). In that case, a number of commands (CREATE, DELETE, UPDATE etcetera) will automatically start a new implicit transaction, and that transaction will not end until you issue a ROLLBACK or a COMMIT.
(See for more info on the difference between transactions and batches in SQL Server for example this question on ServerFault: SQL Server: Statements vs. Batches vs. Transactions vs. Connections.)
I am working on pymssql, a python MSSQL driver. I have encountered an interesting situation that I can't seem to find documentation for. It seems that when a CREATE TABLE statement fails, the transaction it was run in is implicitly rolled back:
-- shows 0
select ##TRANCOUNT
BEGIN TRAN
-- will cause an error
INSERT INTO foobar values ('baz')
-- shows 1 as expected
select ##TRANCOUNT
-- will cause an error
CREATE TABLE badschema.t1 (
test1 CHAR(5) NOT NULL
)
-- shows 0, this is not expected
select ##TRANCOUNT
I would like to understand why this is happening and know if there are docs that describe the situation. I am going to code around this behavior in the driver, but I want to make sure that I do so for any other error types that implicitly rollback a transaction.
NOTE
I am not concerned here with typical transactional behavior. I specifically want to know why an implicit rollback is given in the case of the failed CREATE statement but not with the INSERT statement.
Here is the definitive guide to error handling in Sql Server:
http://www.sommarskog.se/error-handling-I.html
It's long, but in a good way, and it was written for Sql Server 2000 but most of it is still accurate. The part you're looking for is here:
http://www.sommarskog.se/error-handling-I.html#whathappens
In your case, the article says that Sql Server is performing a Batch Abortion, and that it will take this measure in the following situations:
Most conversion errors, for instance conversion of non-numeric string to a numeric value.
Superfluous parameter to a parameterless stored procedure.
Exceeding the maximum nesting-level of stored procedures, triggers and functions.
Being selected as a deadlock victim.
Mismatch in number of columns in INSERT-EXEC.
Running out of space for data file or transaction log.
There's a bit more to it than this, so make sure to read the entire section.
It is often, but not always, the point of a transaction to rollback the entire thing if any part of it fails:
http://www.firstsql.com/tutor5.htm
One of the most common reasons to use transactions is when you need the action to be atomic:
An atomic operation in computer
science refers to a set of operations
that can be combined so that they
appear to the rest of the system to be
a single operation with only two
possible outcomes: success or failure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_(computer_science)
It's probably not documented, because, if I understand your example correctly, it is assumed you intended that functionality by beginning a transaction with BEGIN TRAN
If you run as one batch (which I did first time), the transaction stays open because the INSERT aborts the batch and CREATE TABLE is not run. Only if you run line-by-line does the transaction get rolled back
You can also generate an implicit rollback for the INSERT by setting SET XACT_ABORT ON.
My guess (just had a light bulb moment as I typed the sentence above) is that CREATE TABLE uses SET XACT_ABORT ON internalls = implicit rollback in practice
Some more stuff from me on SO about SET XACT_ABORT (we use it in all our code because it releases locks and rolls back TXNs on client CommandTimeout)