我对TSQL中的某些东西感到惊讶.我认为,如果xact_abort打开,调用类似的东西
raiserror('Something bad happened', 16, 1);
将停止执行存储过程(或任何批处理).
但我的ADO.NET错误消息恰恰相反.我在异常消息中收到了raiserror错误消息,以及之后发生的下一个错误消息.
这是我的解决方法(无论如何这是我的习惯),但它似乎不应该是必要的:
if @somethingBadHappened begin; raiserror('Something bad happened', 16, 1); return; end;
文档说这个:
当SET XACT_ABORT为ON时,如果Transact-SQL语句引发运行时错误,则终止并回滚整个事务.
这是否意味着我必须使用显式交易?
这是By Design TM,正如您可以在Connect上看到的SQL Server团队对类似问题的回答:
感谢您的反馈意见.根据设计,XACT_ABORT设置选项不会影响RAISERROR语句的行为.我们将考虑您的反馈,以便为将来的SQL Server版本修改此行为.
是的,对于一些希望RAISERROR
具有高严重性(例如16
)与SQL执行错误相同的人来说,这是一个问题- 事实并非如此.
您的解决方法只是您需要做的事情,使用显式事务对您要更改的行为没有任何影响.
如果使用try/catch块,则严重性为11-19的raiserror错误号将导致执行跳转到catch块.
任何高于16的严重性都是系统错误.要演示以下代码,请设置try/catch块并执行我们假设将失败的存储过程:
假设我们有一个表[dbo].[错误]保存错误假设我们有一个存储过程[dbo].[AssumeThisFails],当我们执行它时会失败
-- first lets build a temporary table to hold errors if (object_id('tempdb..#RAISERRORS') is null) create table #RAISERRORS (ErrorNumber int, ErrorMessage varchar(400), ErrorSeverity int, ErrorState int, ErrorLine int, ErrorProcedure varchar(128)); -- this will determine if the transaction level of the query to programatically determine if we need to begin a new transaction or create a save point to rollback to declare @tc as int; set @tc = @@trancount; if (@tc = 0) begin transaction; else save transaction myTransaction; -- the code in the try block will be executed begin try declare @return_value = '0'; set @return_value = '0'; declare @ErrorNumber as int, @ErrorMessage as varchar(400), @ErrorSeverity as int, @ErrorState as int, @ErrorLine as int, @ErrorProcedure as varchar(128); -- assume that this procedure fails... exec @return_value = [dbo].[AssumeThisFails] if (@return_value <> 0) raiserror('This is my error message', 17, 1); -- the error severity of 17 will be considered a system error execution of this query will skip the following statements and resume at the begin catch block if (@tc = 0) commit transaction; return(0); end try -- the code in the catch block will be executed on raiserror("message", 17, 1) begin catch select @ErrorNumber = ERROR_NUMBER(), @ErrorMessage = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @ErrorSeverity = ERROR_SEVERITY(), @ErrorState = ERROR_STATE(), @ErrorLine = ERROR_LINE(), @ErrorProcedure = ERROR_PROCEDURE(); insert #RAISERRORS (ErrorNumber, ErrorMessage, ErrorSeverity, ErrorState, ErrorLine, ErrorProcedure) values (@ErrorNumber, @ErrorMessage, @ErrorSeverity, @ErrorState, @ErrorLine, @ErrorProcedure); -- if i started the transaction if (@tc = 0) begin if (XACT_STATE() <> 0) begin select * from #RAISERRORS; rollback transaction; insert into [dbo].[Errors] (ErrorNumber, ErrorMessage, ErrorSeverity, ErrorState, ErrorLine, ErrorProcedure) select * from #RAISERRORS; insert [dbo].[Errors] (ErrorNumber, ErrorMessage, ErrorSeverity, ErrorState, ErrorLine, ErrorProcedure) values (@ErrorNumber, @ErrorMessage, @ErrorSeverity, @ErrorState, @ErrorLine, @ErrorProcedure); return(1); end end -- if i didn't start the transaction if (XACT_STATE() = 1) begin rollback transaction myTransaction; if (object_id('tempdb..#RAISERRORS') is not null) insert #RAISERRORS (ErrorNumber, ErrorMessage, ErrorSeverity, ErrorState, ErrorLine, ErrorProcedure) values (@ErrorNumber, @ErrorMessage, @ErrorSeverity, @ErrorState, @ErrorLine, @ErrorProcedure); else raiserror(@ErrorMessage, @ErrorSeverity, @ErrorState); return(2); end else if (XACT_STATE() = -1) begin rollback transaction; if (object_id('tempdb..#RAISERRORS') is not null) insert #RAISERRORS (ErrorNumber, ErrorMessage, ErrorSeverity, ErrorState, ErrorLine, ErrorProcedure) values (@ErrorNumber, @ErrorMessage, @ErrorSeverity, @ErrorState, @ErrorLine, @ErrorProcedure); else raiserror(@ErrorMessage, @ErrorSeverity, @ErrorState); return(3); end end catch end
RETURN
之后立即使用RAISERROR()
,它不会进一步执行该程序.
正如在MSDN上指出的那样,THROW
应该使用该语句来代替RAISERROR
.
两者表现略有不同.但是当XACT_ABORT
设置为ON时,则应始终使用该THROW
命令.