Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow commit() without transaction?
Good example of why commit() should throw an exception, I think - it's just
alerted the developer that executing their previous statement has caused an
implicit commit. Imagine if they had a complex sequence of queries and
didn't realise they'd added one which ended the transaction, thinking they
could safely rollback later if necessary. The exception catches this early
on.
Regards,
David Gebler
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 1:07 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> Since PHP 8.0, PDO fully supports MySQL transactions -- this means that
> inTransaction() will report the actual connection transaction state, as
> opposed to an emulated (incorrect) transaction state tracked by PDO itself.
>
> This has two primary effects: PDO is aware of transactions created without
> going through it's APIs (e.g. by manually issuing a START TRANSACTION
> query) and is aware of implicit commits (see
> https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/implicit-commit.html for more
> information).
>
> The latter means that code like
>
> $pdo->beginTransaction()
> $pdo->exec('DROP TABLE foobar'); // Implicitly commits transaction
> $pdo->exec('DROP TABLE barfoo'); // Transaction not active anymore
> $pdo->commit(); // Throws because no transaction active
>
> now throws an exception, because commit() is called without an active
> transaction. It's possible to use if ($pdo->inTransaction())
> $pdo->commit(); if you don't care about the lack of active transaction.
>
> I believe this behavior is correct, but I could see an argument made in
> favor of always allowing commit() calls (but not rollBack() calls) even if
> there is no active transaction. That would change the meaning of commit()
> from "commit an active transaction" towards "commit if an active
> transaction exists".
>
> Any opinions on that?
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>
Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow commit() without transaction?
Hi Nikita,
On 12/04/2021 14:07, Nikita Popov wrote:
$pdo->beginTransaction()
$pdo->exec('DROP TABLE foobar'); // Implicitly commits transaction
$pdo->exec('DROP TABLE barfoo'); // Transaction not active anymore
$pdo->commit(); // Throws because no transaction active
now throws an exception, because commit() is called without an active
transaction. It's possible to use if ($pdo->inTransaction())
$pdo->commit(); if you don't care about the lack of active transaction.
I believe this behavior is correct, but I could see an argument made in
favor of always allowing commit() calls (but not rollBack() calls) even if
there is no active transaction. That would change the meaning of commit()
from "commit an active transaction" towards "commit if an active
transaction exists".
Any opinions on that?
I agree. As a user I'd prefer to be alerted that the transaction was not
actually active rather than relying on seemingly working code that
doesn't do what's on the tin.
In fact I probably never knew about this particular MySQL quirk and most
likely I had been fooled many times into thinking that the code above
was a single transaction.
Cheers
--
Matteo Beccati
Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow commit() without transaction?
> > > I think it is really nice that commit() throws for inactive > transactions. Code paths that mess up your transactions will not go > unnoticed that easily. > +1. I've always found this behaviour in MySQL very surprising and error prone (BEGIN; BEGIN; COMMIT; COMMIT; => no errors), and I'm actually very happy to see this solved at PDO level. IMO if someone relies on commit() not throwing if there is no active transaction, they should be the one doing the extra check: if ($pdo->inTransaction()) $pdo->commit(). — Benjamin
Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow commit() without transaction?
What would be a benefit of a commit function that can be executed without an active transaction?
Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow commit() without transaction?
On 12-04-2021 14:07, Nikita Popov wrote: > I believe this behavior is correct, but I could see an argument made in > favor of always allowing commit() calls (but not rollBack() calls) even if > there is no active transaction. That would change the meaning of commit() > from "commit an active transaction" towards "commit if an active > transaction exists". > > Any opinions on that? > I think it is really nice that commit() throws for inactive transactions. Code paths that mess up your transactions will not go unnoticed that easily. My preference would be to have a separate commit method or a method parameter to explicitly allow committing without an active transaction. Regards, Dik Takken -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
