Multiple Inserts in the Same Stored Procedure

Hey,
I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.bradley.d.walker@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hey,
> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
> record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
> need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
> illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
> them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
> previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
>
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT Table1 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
INSERT Table2 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
INSERT Table3 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
INSERT Table4 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
...
...
...
...
...
...
COMMIT TRANSACTION|||With SQL 2000 -SQL 2005 is a bit 'simplier' in manifestation - but the idea
is the same.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT INTO into table1 (ColList) VALUES (ValList)
IF @.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK
RETURN
END
INSERT INTO into table2 (ColList) VALUES (ValList)
IF @.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK
RETURN
END
{etc.}
COMMIT TRANSACTION
RETURN
There are variations to the idea, using GOTO to the end of the sproc and ROL
LBACK from there.
--
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
<bradley.d.walker@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1151077294.100001.43410@.g10g2000cwb.goog
legroups.com...
> Hey,
>
> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
> record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
> need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
> illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
> them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
> previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
>|||To add to the other responses, consider adding SET XACT_ABORT ON to the
beginning of your proc. This will ensure a transaction rollback occurs in
the case of a client-initiated attention event (e.g. query timeout or
cancel).
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<bradley.d.walker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151077294.100001.43410@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hey,
> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
> record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
> need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
> illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
> them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
> previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
>|||>> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a record [si
c] into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails Ineed to rollb
ack all of the previous inserts that were done. <<
Easy enough; set up a series of INSERT INTO's in a single transaction,
trap each insertion's error and do a ROLLBACK and return if you have a
failure. Do not commit until the end of the whole thing.
The scope of transactions in T-SQL is independent of the block
structure of the language. Think of a "transaction guy" with a bucket
of data looking at a house. The house pumps data into his bucket. He
does not care what is happening inside; he is waiting to see a COMMIT
or ROLLBACK flag come out of the window of the house. At that point,
he either throws the data out or throws it in the database.
But a better question why do you want to store the same data in
multiple tables? The major reason we moved from files to RDBMS was to
get rid of redundancy -- the mantra is "one fact, one time, one way,
one place!" and not "Let's make ten copies and try to keep them all the
same!" Instead of making ten copies of a mag tape with the same data,
we use VIEWs, CTE, and derived tables in SQL.
You did know that a row is not a record in your posting or understand
transactions, makes me wonder if your schema is messed up because you
are mimicing files.|||Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
> To add to the other responses, consider adding SET XACT_ABORT ON to the
> beginning of your proc. This will ensure a transaction rollback occurs in
> the case of a client-initiated attention event (e.g. query timeout or
> cancel).
Very interesting! I did not know about this. This can be a quick fix
for applications that suffers from unhandled query timeouts.
Why did you not tell me this before? :-)
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||> Very interesting! I did not know about this. This can be a quick fix
> for applications that suffers from unhandled query timeouts.
We did exactly that recently for one of our ADO middle-tier database
application with persistent db connections. All transactions were done in
stored procedure code (no nested procs) and the application performed no
explicit transaction handling and no special database exception handling.
Database errors were logged but the app moved on, oblivious to the
ramifications.
Everything was fine until a nightly job was accidentally run during the day
and that caused blocking and subsequent command timeouts. Because the app
performed no connection cleanup after the exception, a transaction that was
in progress remained open after the timeout. All subsequent work done on a
problem connection was done in the context the open transaction and was
never committed!
In addition to adding XACT_ABORT ON quick fix, I asked the developers to
close and re-open persistent connections following any type of database
exception.

> Why did you not tell me this before? :-)
I got the idea to try XACT_ABORT ON after perusing your error handling
articles. Somehow, I got it in my mind that this technique was covered
there ;-)
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns97ED135AF6FCYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
> Very interesting! I did not know about this. This can be a quick fix
> for applications that suffers from unhandled query timeouts.
> Why did you not tell me this before? :-)
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
> Everything was fine until a nightly job was accidentally run during the
> day and that caused blocking and subsequent command timeouts. Because
> the app performed no connection cleanup after the exception, a
> transaction that was in progress remained open after the timeout. All
> subsequent work done on a problem connection was done in the context the
> open transaction and was never committed!
A really fine mess! Yes, we have experienced this in our application as
well, although that's many years behind us now. I wonder how much the
default timeout of 30 seconds have cost enterprises over the worldin
money and misery.

> In addition to adding XACT_ABORT ON quick fix, I asked the developers to
> close and re-open persistent connections following any type of database
> exception.
While better than nothing, it's not optimal, unless you already have
turned off connection pooling. Of course, if you close and reconnect
directly, and get back the same physical connection directly, everything
will be cleaned up on the spot. But if the pool gives you a different
connection, it could take 60 seconds before the rollback occurs, when
the API actually closes the connection.

> I got the idea to try XACT_ABORT ON after perusing your error handling
> articles. Somehow, I got it in my mind that this technique was covered
> there ;-)
In that case, I don't know that I write in my articles myself. But I
will have to add it!
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx