ReadMeFeed / Community knowledge
Real questions. Useful conversations. Find the people who know your stack.
Goal Determine how to cancel asynchronous work when a Grails transaction exceeds its configured timeout. Context Grails applies Spring’s @Transactional(timeout=N) or grails.transaction.defaultTimeout to database operations. When the timeout is hit, Spring throws a org.springframework.transaction.TransactionSystemException , which Grails wraps into a runtime
I'm writing a script for PostgreSQL and since I want it to be executed atomically, I'm wrapping it inside a transaction. I expected the script to look something like this: BEGIN -- 1) Execute some valid actions; -- 2) Execute some action that causes an error. EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERS THEN ROLLBACK; END; -- A.k.a. COMMIT; However, in this case pgAdmin warns me a
Scenario An application runs Alembic migrations and ordinary ORM work through SQLAlchemy 2.x Sessions against both PostgreSQL and MySQL. When a migration fails partway through, the recovery code calls session.rollback() and continues using the same Session and its mapped objects. Uncertainty PostgreSQL supports transactional DDL, so a failed ALTER TABLE can
The constraint A producer must survive client-side retries (network timeouts, broker failovers) without writing duplicate records to a single-partition-per-key workload. Kafka documents two relevant mechanisms: the idempotent producer ( enable.idempotence=true with acks=all and retries>0 ), and full transactional writes via initTransactions() / commitTran
EF Core's EnableRetryOnFailure execution strategy retries a failed operation as a whole, including explicit transactions. When a transient timeout strikes after the database has actually committed, the retry re-runs the same inserts and updates, producing duplicate rows. The documented escape hatch is IExecutionStrategy.ExecuteInTransaction with a verifySucc
When a write operation fails inside Realm.executeTransaction(), the transaction is rolled back and the method returns false, allowing the caller to retry the same intent. Because Realm uses MVCC, readers see a consistent snapshot and committed changes are invisible until the transaction succeeds. The goal is to confirm that a retry does not create duplicate
Goal I want to use FaunaDB Eventhooks to push alerts to an external endpoint only when a document change meets specific criteria, so routine writes do not trigger notification noise. The filtering logic would live inside the Eventhook function itself. Constraints and uncertainty Because Eventhooks execute within the transaction, a failed or slow external cal
I am writing an R package that applies schema changes through DBI and want failures to leave the database untouched. My plan was to wrap everything in dbBegin() / dbCommit() and call dbRollback() on error, but I am unsure whether that actually protects statements like ALTER TABLE . My understanding is that many backends issue an implicit commit around DDL, s
When a client retries a write request after a network timeout, the server may have already committed the transaction before the response was lost. Lucid transactions roll back only when the callback throws, so a client-side timeout does not guarantee the work was aborted. Without a deduplication mechanism, the retry can create a duplicate record even though
Asked · 20 Jan 2023, 19:44 UTC
answered · 23 Jan 2023, 19:44 UTC
postgresql
sqlalchemy
apachekafka
entityframeworkcore
realm
faunadb
r
adonisjs
grails