I am stuggling to create a trigger that drops a constraint using ALTER TABLE I have read that this command cannot be used within a trigger so have included it as a string. All the code has been tested outside of a trigger and works correctly, any help would be appreciated.
The error I am currently getting is 'commit rollback not alowed within atomic operation'
CREATE TRIGGER updates_equipment_type BEFORE INSERT ON trained_on REFERENCING NEW AS new_trained_on FOR EACH ROW WHEN (new_trained_on.type NOT IN (SELECT type FROM equipment_type)) BEGIN EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'ALTER TABLE trained_on DROP CONSTRAINT relationship_fixed_by ALTER TABLE equipment_type DROP CONSTRAINT mandatory_participation_in_fixed_by'; INSERT INTO equipment_type VALUES (new_trained_on.type); EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'ALTER TABLE trained_on ADD CONSTRAINT relationship_fixed_by FOREIGN KEY (type) REFERENCES equipment_type ALTER TABLE equipment_type ADD CONSTRAINT mandatory_participation_in_fixed_by CHECK (type IN ( SELECT type FROM trained_on))'; END
Request clarification before answering.
While I fully follow Breck's advice in general, in the current case, this won't work as expected IMHO:
You seem to want to disable a CHECK constraint and a FOREIGN KEY constraint for the current table while entering "violating" data, so the desired solution to
requires correct timing, which won't be guaranteed with the asynchronous EVENT solution.
There are possibly different approaches if you need to disable any logic during particular DML statements on a regular basis - which would not require to ALTER TABLE in between (which will not scale very well, anyway, in case that might matter...).
E.g. you might use a particular configuration table that can be used to disable checks for particular users or connections. Cf. this FAQ for a similar question on disabling trigger actions...
We could surely give some sample code if you can elaborate what exactly you're trying to achieve. Ideas would include delayed foreign key checks with the "wait_for_commit" option (to add the missing parent entry "on demand") or a check including a CREATE VARIABLE to disable the check temporarily...
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
OK, but would that not conflict with the INSERT statement itself?
Re-reading the question, I would think that
would be much simpler - but that's just my understanding of the question...
First of all, wait_for_commit doesn't affect the CHECK constraint that is dropped and added... if the CHECK is going to fail, it will still fail.
Second of all, dropping and recreating a foreign key around a single INSERT seems pointless... if the INSERT causes a violation, the ALTER TABLE ADD foreign key will raise it. Generally, dropping and recreating foreign keys, or wait_for_commit, is ONLY useful if you have two or more operations... one which violates, and another which repairs the violation. That is not the case here, which implies the dropping and recreating the foreign key is pointless.
I suspect more work needs to be done here... BUT, please tell me how moving all the code into an event would cause a conflict (or at least, a conflict that isn't already there 🙂
...by "all code" I mean the four ALTERs and one INSERT.
Yes, "wait_for_commit" would not resolve the CHECK constraint issue - therefore I've hinted at a "check including a variable to disable the check temporarily...".
The conflict might arise between the "INSERT trained_on ..." and the event code when triggered :
Obviously we're dealing with an "INSERT trained_on ... " that tries to insert an equipment_type which does not already exist in the latter table.
In that case the according FK constraint will fail, unless the FK is already dropped from within the event before the INSERT statement is finished - or, in case "wait_for_commit" is set, before it is committed. That's the dangling timing issue I see. - In other words: I would think the event code must be run before the INSERT is finished, and that would not be guaranteed simply because of the asynchronous nature of event connections.
Correction: IMHO the ALTER TABLE cannot succeed timely, as the following situation clearly would be satisfied:
"ALTER TABLE is prevented whenever the statement affects a table that is currently being used by another connection".
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.