In the previous post, we demonstrated running into the mutating table error. The example involved the well-known EMP table and a business rule that we are trying to implement: all departments with a Manager should also employ a Clerk. We started our implementation for that rule by writing a straight-forward 'after-row-insert' trigger on the EMP table.
- The row trigger detects whenever a Manager is inserted (remember, we can only detect this with a row trigger, not with a statement trigger);
- It then calls a stored procedure to which it supplies the department number (deptno-column value) of the inserted Manager;
- The procedure then queries the EMP table to see if a Clerk exists in this department;
- If it finds no such Clerk, the procedure raises an application error, which causes the after-insert-row trigger to fail. This in turn prevents the insert of the Manager, since it would violate our business rule (the Manager insert will undergo a statement-level rollback due to the row-trigger failing);
- If it finds such a Clerk, then the procedure finishes successfully, which causes the after-insert-row trigger to finish successfully, which causes the Manager insert to execute successfully.
A straight-forward 'use-case' of using a (row) trigger, right? Of course this setup didn't work, since the cursor in the stored procedure will always hit the mutating table error, thus preventing a Manager insert even if the necessary Clerk would indeed be present.
So, what's the workaround for this? Well there are a two I would like to discuss in this post: one of them is very 'popular', the other one is -- I guess -- not so well-known.
I cannot stress enough upfront right now, that both 'workarounds' are red herrings.
Workaround 1a: use the autonomous_transaction pragma inside the stored procedure.
If we add just one line at the top of the stored procedure, we can fix this baby (see red-arrow line below).
By ensuring that all code inside the P_CHECK_FOR_CLERK procedure will run as an autonomous transaction, we can prevent the mutating table error. Why? Because it causes Oracle to 'step out' of the current transaction context, in which EMP is currently 'mutating', and open a new transaction in which EMP is not mutating, and therefor can be queried without hitting the mutating table error. So all we need to do is add the PRAGMA line highlighted above. We do not need to add an explicit COMMIT (or ROLLBACK) at the end of the procedure, which is usually required to end an autonomous transaction, since the procedure doesn't really start a transaction at all: is just issues a query.
This is the popular workaround. Now for the lesser known workaround.
Workaround 1b: use a loopback db-link to query the mutating table.
By querying the EMP table to look for a Clerk, via a loopback database link, we can fix this baby too.
So we create a loopback database link (which we call loopback above) which connects back to our application owner schema. We then add the text '@loopback' to the table name (EMP) inside the FROM-clause of our query that was hitting the mutating table (second red arrow above). Done. We'll demonstrate in a minute that this 'fixes' our issue as well.
But before we do that you really need to understand a fundamental difference between these two workarounds.
In the preliminaries that we discussed in the previous post, one of the observations that was made about an autonomous transaction was that all code in such transaction cannot see any (uncommitted) changes made by the other (parent) transaction. So what this means for our example is that the cursor in the stored procedure (the one that tries to find a Clerk) which is executed by an 'after-row' trigger, will see the EMP table without the Manager that was inserted by our triggering insert statement.
The cursor that uses the loopback database link, which is executed from within a new session created by the database link, *will* see the mutating table as it exists at that point-in-time in the transaction of the 'original' session (the one that issued the Manager insert). Why? Because Oracle detects that both sessions are now part of a distributed transaction, and the database link session will see the same database snapshot as the other session. Now this is pretty radical, I think. When I discovered this behavior I was stunned for a few moments: here we have a database session (OK, it's one that was created by a database link, but still) a session that is able to see uncommitted changes of a different session! I will show you a demo that proves this behavior in a minute.
Now wouldn't that be an in-depth (trick) question for some fancy certification exam:
"When can a database session see uncommitted changes of another session?"
b) Always, this is default behavior.
c) If it's using an autonomous transaction.
d) If the session was opened by a database link.
Now let's test both workarounds. Remember we are trying to insert a manager into department 42, in which no other employee works yet.
Et voilá: no more mutating table error. Our row-trigger + procedure work, they give us the business rule error.
So what's wrong with both approaches? Can you guess it? I'll give you a hint: think about multi-row inserts. Will they work given workaround 1a (the autonomous transaction) or workaround 1b (the db-link trick)?
I'll discuss this in the sequel, which should follow promptly.