Sophie: postgresql8.3-docs-8.3.6-2mdv2008.1 x86

postgresql8.3-docs-8.3.6-2mdv2008.1.x86_64.rpm

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML
><HEAD
><TITLE
>Transactions</TITLE
><META
NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.79"><LINK
REV="MADE"
HREF="mailto:pgsql-docs@postgresql.org"><LINK
REL="HOME"
TITLE="PostgreSQL 8.3.6 Documentation"
HREF="index.html"><LINK
REL="UP"
TITLE="Advanced Features"
HREF="tutorial-advanced.html"><LINK
REL="PREVIOUS"
TITLE="Foreign Keys"
HREF="tutorial-fk.html"><LINK
REL="NEXT"
TITLE="Inheritance"
HREF="tutorial-inheritance.html"><LINK
REL="STYLESHEET"
TYPE="text/css"
HREF="stylesheet.css"><META
HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type"
CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><META
NAME="creation"
CONTENT="2009-02-03T04:34:16"></HEAD
><BODY
CLASS="SECT1"
><DIV
CLASS="NAVHEADER"
><TABLE
SUMMARY="Header navigation table"
WIDTH="100%"
BORDER="0"
CELLPADDING="0"
CELLSPACING="0"
><TR
><TH
COLSPAN="5"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="bottom"
>PostgreSQL 8.3.6 Documentation</TH
></TR
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="10%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-fk.html"
ACCESSKEY="P"
>Prev</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="10%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-advanced.html"
>Fast Backward</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="60%"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="bottom"
>Chapter 3. Advanced Features</TD
><TD
WIDTH="10%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-advanced.html"
>Fast Forward</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="10%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-inheritance.html"
ACCESSKEY="N"
>Next</A
></TD
></TR
></TABLE
><HR
ALIGN="LEFT"
WIDTH="100%"></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="TUTORIAL-TRANSACTIONS"
>3.4. Transactions</A
></H1
><A
NAME="AEN965"
></A
><P
>    <I
CLASS="FIRSTTERM"
>Transactions</I
> are a fundamental concept of all database
    systems.  The essential point of a transaction is that it bundles
    multiple steps into a single, all-or-nothing operation.  The intermediate
    states between the steps are not visible to other concurrent transactions,
    and if some failure occurs that prevents the transaction from completing,
    then none of the steps affect the database at all.
   </P
><P
>    For example, consider a bank database that contains balances for various
    customer accounts, as well as total deposit balances for branches.
    Suppose that we want to record a payment of $100.00 from Alice's account
    to Bob's account.  Simplifying outrageously, the SQL commands for this
    might look like:

</P><PRE
CLASS="PROGRAMLISTING"
>UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - 100.00
    WHERE name = 'Alice';
UPDATE branches SET balance = balance - 100.00
    WHERE name = (SELECT branch_name FROM accounts WHERE name = 'Alice');
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance + 100.00
    WHERE name = 'Bob';
UPDATE branches SET balance = balance + 100.00
    WHERE name = (SELECT branch_name FROM accounts WHERE name = 'Bob');</PRE
><P>
   </P
><P
>    The details of these commands are not important here; the important
    point is that there are several separate updates involved to accomplish
    this rather simple operation.  Our bank's officers will want to be
    assured that either all these updates happen, or none of them happen.
    It would certainly not do for a system failure to result in Bob
    receiving $100.00 that was not debited from Alice.  Nor would Alice long
    remain a happy customer if she was debited without Bob being credited.
    We need a guarantee that if something goes wrong partway through the
    operation, none of the steps executed so far will take effect.  Grouping
    the updates into a <I
CLASS="FIRSTTERM"
>transaction</I
> gives us this guarantee.
    A transaction is said to be <I
CLASS="FIRSTTERM"
>atomic</I
>: from the point of
    view of other transactions, it either happens completely or not at all.
   </P
><P
>    We also want a
    guarantee that once a transaction is completed and acknowledged by
    the database system, it has indeed been permanently recorded
    and won't be lost even if a crash ensues shortly thereafter.
    For example, if we are recording a cash withdrawal by Bob,
    we do not want any chance that the debit to his account will
    disappear in a crash just after he walks out the bank door.
    A transactional database guarantees that all the updates made by
    a transaction are logged in permanent storage (i.e., on disk) before
    the transaction is reported complete.
   </P
><P
>    Another important property of transactional databases is closely
    related to the notion of atomic updates: when multiple transactions
    are running concurrently, each one should not be able to see the
    incomplete changes made by others.  For example, if one transaction
    is busy totalling all the branch balances, it would not do for it
    to include the debit from Alice's branch but not the credit to
    Bob's branch, nor vice versa.  So transactions must be all-or-nothing
    not only in terms of their permanent effect on the database, but
    also in terms of their visibility as they happen.  The updates made
    so far by an open transaction are invisible to other transactions
    until the transaction completes, whereupon all the updates become
    visible simultaneously.
   </P
><P
>    In <SPAN
CLASS="PRODUCTNAME"
>PostgreSQL</SPAN
>, a transaction is set up by surrounding
    the SQL commands of the transaction with
    <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>BEGIN</TT
> and <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>COMMIT</TT
> commands.  So our banking
    transaction would actually look like:

</P><PRE
CLASS="PROGRAMLISTING"
>BEGIN;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - 100.00
    WHERE name = 'Alice';
-- etc etc
COMMIT;</PRE
><P>
   </P
><P
>    If, partway through the transaction, we decide we do not want to
    commit (perhaps we just noticed that Alice's balance went negative),
    we can issue the command <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>ROLLBACK</TT
> instead of
    <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>COMMIT</TT
>, and all our updates so far will be canceled.
   </P
><P
>    <SPAN
CLASS="PRODUCTNAME"
>PostgreSQL</SPAN
> actually treats every SQL statement as being
    executed within a transaction.  If you do not issue a <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>BEGIN</TT
>
    command, 
    then each individual statement has an implicit <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>BEGIN</TT
> and
    (if successful) <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>COMMIT</TT
> wrapped around it.  A group of
    statements surrounded by <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>BEGIN</TT
> and <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>COMMIT</TT
>
    is sometimes called a <I
CLASS="FIRSTTERM"
>transaction block</I
>.
   </P
><DIV
CLASS="NOTE"
><BLOCKQUOTE
CLASS="NOTE"
><P
><B
>Note: </B
>     Some client libraries issue <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>BEGIN</TT
> and <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>COMMIT</TT
>
     commands automatically, so that you might get the effect of transaction
     blocks without asking.  Check the documentation for the interface
     you are using.
    </P
></BLOCKQUOTE
></DIV
><P
>    It's possible to control the statements in a transaction in a more
    granular fashion through the use of <I
CLASS="FIRSTTERM"
>savepoints</I
>.  Savepoints
    allow you to selectively discard parts of the transaction, while
    committing the rest.  After defining a savepoint with
    <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>SAVEPOINT</TT
>, you can if needed roll back to the savepoint
    with <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>ROLLBACK TO</TT
>.  All the transaction's database changes
    between defining the savepoint and rolling back to it are discarded, but
    changes earlier than the savepoint are kept.
   </P
><P
>    After rolling back to a savepoint, it continues to be defined, so you can
    roll back to it several times.  Conversely, if you are sure you won't need
    to roll back to a particular savepoint again, it can be released, so the
    system can free some resources.  Keep in mind that either releasing or
    rolling back to a savepoint
    will automatically release all savepoints that were defined after it.
   </P
><P
>    All this is happening within the transaction block, so none of it
    is visible to other database sessions.  When and if you commit the
    transaction block, the committed actions become visible as a unit
    to other sessions, while the rolled-back actions never become visible
    at all.
   </P
><P
>    Remembering the bank database, suppose we debit $100.00 from Alice's
    account, and credit Bob's account, only to find later that we should
    have credited Wally's account.  We could do it using savepoints like
    this:

</P><PRE
CLASS="PROGRAMLISTING"
>BEGIN;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - 100.00
    WHERE name = 'Alice';
SAVEPOINT my_savepoint;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance + 100.00
    WHERE name = 'Bob';
-- oops ... forget that and use Wally's account
ROLLBACK TO my_savepoint;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance + 100.00
    WHERE name = 'Wally';
COMMIT;</PRE
><P>
   </P
><P
>    This example is, of course, oversimplified, but there's a lot of control
    to be had over a transaction block through the use of savepoints.
    Moreover, <TT
CLASS="COMMAND"
>ROLLBACK TO</TT
> is the only way to regain control of a
    transaction block that was put in aborted state by the
    system due to an error, short of rolling it back completely and starting
    again.
   </P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="NAVFOOTER"
><HR
ALIGN="LEFT"
WIDTH="100%"><TABLE
SUMMARY="Footer navigation table"
WIDTH="100%"
BORDER="0"
CELLPADDING="0"
CELLSPACING="0"
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-fk.html"
ACCESSKEY="P"
>Prev</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="34%"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="index.html"
ACCESSKEY="H"
>Home</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-inheritance.html"
ACCESSKEY="N"
>Next</A
></TD
></TR
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="top"
>Foreign Keys</TD
><TD
WIDTH="34%"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="tutorial-advanced.html"
ACCESSKEY="U"
>Up</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="top"
>Inheritance</TD
></TR
></TABLE
></DIV
></BODY
></HTML
>