-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(postgres): allow running multiple statements in no tx migrations #3694
Open
adriangb
wants to merge
4
commits into
launchbadge:main
Choose a base branch
from
adriangb:split-migrations
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
65fe6b3
feat(postgres): allow running multiple statements in no tx migrations
adriangb f626511
feat(postgres): allow running multiple statements in no tx migrations
adriangb 42c6e7c
rename and match full line only
adriangb f4cafdc
add file
adriangb File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | ||
-- no-transaction | ||
|
||
CREATE TABLE test_table (x int); | ||
-- split-migration | ||
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY test_table_x_idx ON test_table (x); | ||
-- split-migration | ||
INSERT INTO test_table (x) VALUES (1); | ||
-- prove that you can have a comment that won't split -- split-migration DROP TABLE does_not_exist; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I confirmed that if I remove the |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bikeshedding: I don't think
-migration
adds any information here. If I encountered this without context while reading through a migration file and didn't already know what it did, I'd just have a lot more questions:I think we could choose a much more self-descriptive name here. I suggested
-- statement-break
in the original issue but I'm not sure that's helpful, either. "Aren't statements already broken up by semicolons?" I would ask.Here's some ideas:
-- split-execute
-- execute-separately
-- transaction-break
-- autocommit-break
-- split-autocommit
-- transactional-ddl-split
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm happy with any of them, feel free to pick your favorite and I'll edit the PR 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @abonander any thoughts on which marker we should choose? Of those options I personally like
-- transaction-break
but again no strong opinionThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah,
transaction-break
seems to be the front-runner, but my biggest concern is someone might look at a migration file and see something like this:and be really confused. "Wtf? I thought this was already not executing in a transaction? What does
-- transaction-break
mean if it's not supposed to be in a transaction in the first place?"However, I'm now realizing that this functionality actually can supercede
-- no-transaction
as long as we make sure to handle the migration as if it started with-- no-transaction
.This actually has great potential value to the user because we can execute everything before the first
-- transaction-break
in a transaction block, so if there's an error in that part of the migration, it can be completely rolled back and the user isn't stuck with a partially applied migration.And also, if the only statement in the migration is one that can't happen in a transaction,
-- no-transaction
and-- transaction-break
are effectively equivalent.There is probably still value in keeping
-- no-transaction
in that situation because I believe there's "Postgres-compatible" third-party databases that don't support any DDL in a transaction, and-- no-transaction
kind of makes more sense as a whole-file flag than-- transaction-break
.Alternatively, we could just roll this functionality into
-- no-transaction
since it's essentially a superset of its behavior. But I think seeing multiple-- no-transaction
lines in a migration would also be confusing; it'd be like, "did it not get the message the first time?"Maybe... roll it together, support
-- transaction-break
as an alias of-- no-transaction
and leave it up to the user as a stylistic choice? But it's probably better to just pick one label and stick with it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Eh, I would probably leave
-- no-transaction
as it is. But use of-- transaction-break
would make it optional.