On 5/7/24 9:48 AM, Siddharth Jain wrote:
Thanks All for the kind responses. I understand how MVCC takes care of
atomicity for updates to rows. I was developing a project where lets say
data for each table is stored in its own folder together with metadata
(we are not talking postgres now). So if I have two tables A and B I
have a folder structure like:
A
\_ metadata.json
B
\_ metadata.json
Now if I want to rename a table, I need to move the folder and also
update metadata accordingly. These are two separate operations but need
to be done atomically - all or none. in this case it is possible that we
succeed in renaming the folder but fail to update metadata for whatever
reason. then if we try to undo the folder rename we get another failure
for whatever reason. how to deal with such scenarios? are there no such
scenarios in postgres?
The only thing I can think of is creating a function in one of the
untrusted languages plpython3u or plperlu to do the renaming. Then in
say plpython3u case wrap the actions in try/except block. On a failure
take the appropriate undo action.
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:29 PM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx>> writes:
> On Friday, May 3, 2024, Siddharth Jain <siddhsql@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:siddhsql@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> The way I understand this is that if there is a failure
in-between, we
>>> start undoing and reverting the previous operations one by one.
> Not in PostgreSQL. All work performed is considered provisional
until a
> commit succeeds. At which point all provisional work, which had been
> tagged with the same transaction identifier, becomes reality to
the rest of
> the system, by virtue of marking the transaction live.
Right. We don't use UNDO; instead, we use multiple versions of
database rows (MVCC). A transaction doesn't modify the contents
of existing rows, but just marks them as provisionally outdated, and
then inserts new row versions that are marked provisionally inserted.
Other transactions ignore the outdate markings and the uncommitted new
rows, until the transaction commits, at which time the new versions
become live and the old ones become dead. If the transaction never
does commit -- either through ROLLBACK or a crash -- then the old row
versions remain live and the new ones are dead. In either case, we
don't have a consistency or correctness problem, but we do have dead
rows that must eventually get vacuumed away to prevent indefinite
storage bloat. That can be done by background housekeeping processes
though (a/k/a autovacuum).
I believe Oracle, for one, actually does use UNDO. I don't know
what they do about failure-to-UNDO.
regards, tom lane
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
