fix: invalid migration #860
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request updates a SQL migration script to change the pagination mechanism used during data retrieval. It replaces a Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant M as Migration Script
participant DB as Database
Note over M: Start migration loop
M->>DB: SELECT * FROM moves_view OFFSET _offset LIMIT _batch_size
DB-->>M: Return batch of records
Note over M: Process retrieved records
M->>DB: Repeat query for next batch (if necessary)
Note over M: End migration loop when no records remain
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql (1)
41-42: Review of Pagination Changes: OFFSET and LIMITThe updated query now uses the standard pagination clauses—
OFFSET _offsetandLIMIT _batch_size—to retrieve batches from the temporary tablemoves_view. This approach discards the previous filtering based ontransactions_seqand should help avoid potential issues when sequence numbers are non-sequential or contain gaps.Note: When dealing with very high offset values, the performance of OFFSET may degrade. While this change is acceptable for the current dataset size, you might eventually consider keyset pagination as an optional improvement for increased efficiency in case the dataset grows significantly.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Tests
🔇 Additional comments (1)
internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql (1)
55-55:❓ Verification inconclusive
Validate the Use of COMMIT in a DO Block
The migration script issues a
COMMIT;inside the DO block’s loop (line 55). In PostgreSQL, DO blocks execute within a single transaction, and explicit transaction control statements likeCOMMITare typically disallowed in this context. This could lead to runtime errors unless your migration environment is set up to handle such uses.Action: Verify that this use of
COMMIT;works as intended in your environment. If not, consider restructuring the migration by performing batch commits outside the DO block or employing another strategy for controlling transactions.
Below is a shell script I’m generating to extract the surrounding context of line 55 (and more) from the migration file and to search for DO block and COMMIT usages. Running this will help verify whether the COMMIT statement is indeed placed inside a DO block and confirm if the migration environment handles it as expected.
Next Steps:
• Run this script to verify that the COMMIT statement truly falls inside a DO block.
• Confirm if your migration environment is configured to allow (or work around) explicit COMMIT usage within such blocks. If not, consider restructuring the migration for batch commits outside the DO block.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Extract context from the file (lines 40-70) to inspect how the DO block is structured. echo "Extracting lines 40-70 from internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql:" sed -n '40,70p' internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql # Search for the DO block declaration in the file (using case-insensitive matching) echo "Searching for DO block declaration in up.sql:" grep -Ri "do\s*\$\$" internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql # Search for occurrences of the COMMIT statement to see if it’s inside the DO block. echo "Searching for COMMIT statements in up.sql:" grep -Ri "commit;" internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sqlLength of output: 1195
Validate Transaction Control Within the DO Block
The migration file (internal/storage/bucket/migrations/28-fix-pcv-missing-asset/up.sql) contains a
COMMIT;statement within a loop inside a DO block (as seen by theend $$;terminator). In standard PostgreSQL execution, DO blocks run in a single transaction, and explicit transaction control commands likeCOMMIT;are not allowed—this could potentially cause runtime errors unless your migration environment has special handling in place.Action Items:
- Environment Verification: Confirm whether your migration environment permits the use of explicit
COMMIT;statements within a DO block. If it does, please document the configuration that allows this exceptional behavior.- Refactoring Suggestion: If the environment does not support this, consider restructuring the migration to perform batch commits outside the DO block, or adopt an alternative strategy to manage transactional boundaries.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #860 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 82.22% 82.22%
=======================================
Files 140 140
Lines 7596 7596
=======================================
Hits 6246 6246
Misses 1035 1035
Partials 315 315 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
No description provided.