Can't stop execution of “ADD PERIOD”












2














I'm trying to conditionally execute an ALTER TABLE command (this one, to be precise). However, I can't get the ADD PERIOD to be conditional and I suspect this might be a bug.



Here's what I've tried to skip execution if the PERIOD already exists on the table. All of these raise the same error:




Msg 13597, Level 16, State 2, Line xx



Temporal SYSTEM_TIME period is already defined on table 'msdb.dbo.sysjobhistory'.






  1. Only add the PERIOD if it doesn't currently exist:



    if not exists(select 1 from sys.periods where object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
    ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
    ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


    This raised the error.




  2. Since the above didn't work, I wanted to make sure my IF statement was evaluating correctly so I tried:



    if 1=2
    ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
    ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


    But that raised the error as well.




  3. Use SET NOEXEC ON to stop execution of the code:



    set noexec ON
    ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
    ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
    set noexec OFF


    Didn't work. The ALTER TABLE still raised the error.




  4. Admit defeat and wrap it in a TRY/CATCH and just ignore the error:



    begin try
    ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
    ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
    end try
    begin catch
    end catch


    This raised the error too -- which I didn't expect since it was a level 16 and, according to the docs, a level 16 should go to the CATCH block.




Is this a bug in Azure SQL Server? This is running on a Managed Instance. The @@VERSION reports:




Microsoft SQL Azure (RTM) - 12.0.2000.8 Nov 2 2018 21:17:06 Copyright (C) 2018 Microsoft Corporation




UPDATE:



I can use a similar technique to skip adding columns that already exist without any issues:



if not exists(select 1 from sys.columns where name = 'StartTime' and object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
ADD StartTime DATETIME2 NOT NULL DEFAULT ('19000101 00:00:00.0000000')
GO


The above code only executes if the sysjobhistory does not contain the column StartTime. If it already does, the code does nothing and continues executing. The ALTER TABLE with ADD PERIOD always causes an execution error even if the code is inside an IF condition that evaluates to false.










share|improve this question





























    2














    I'm trying to conditionally execute an ALTER TABLE command (this one, to be precise). However, I can't get the ADD PERIOD to be conditional and I suspect this might be a bug.



    Here's what I've tried to skip execution if the PERIOD already exists on the table. All of these raise the same error:




    Msg 13597, Level 16, State 2, Line xx



    Temporal SYSTEM_TIME period is already defined on table 'msdb.dbo.sysjobhistory'.






    1. Only add the PERIOD if it doesn't currently exist:



      if not exists(select 1 from sys.periods where object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
      ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
      ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


      This raised the error.




    2. Since the above didn't work, I wanted to make sure my IF statement was evaluating correctly so I tried:



      if 1=2
      ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
      ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


      But that raised the error as well.




    3. Use SET NOEXEC ON to stop execution of the code:



      set noexec ON
      ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
      ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
      set noexec OFF


      Didn't work. The ALTER TABLE still raised the error.




    4. Admit defeat and wrap it in a TRY/CATCH and just ignore the error:



      begin try
      ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
      ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
      end try
      begin catch
      end catch


      This raised the error too -- which I didn't expect since it was a level 16 and, according to the docs, a level 16 should go to the CATCH block.




    Is this a bug in Azure SQL Server? This is running on a Managed Instance. The @@VERSION reports:




    Microsoft SQL Azure (RTM) - 12.0.2000.8 Nov 2 2018 21:17:06 Copyright (C) 2018 Microsoft Corporation




    UPDATE:



    I can use a similar technique to skip adding columns that already exist without any issues:



    if not exists(select 1 from sys.columns where name = 'StartTime' and object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
    ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
    ADD StartTime DATETIME2 NOT NULL DEFAULT ('19000101 00:00:00.0000000')
    GO


    The above code only executes if the sysjobhistory does not contain the column StartTime. If it already does, the code does nothing and continues executing. The ALTER TABLE with ADD PERIOD always causes an execution error even if the code is inside an IF condition that evaluates to false.










    share|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2







      I'm trying to conditionally execute an ALTER TABLE command (this one, to be precise). However, I can't get the ADD PERIOD to be conditional and I suspect this might be a bug.



      Here's what I've tried to skip execution if the PERIOD already exists on the table. All of these raise the same error:




      Msg 13597, Level 16, State 2, Line xx



      Temporal SYSTEM_TIME period is already defined on table 'msdb.dbo.sysjobhistory'.






      1. Only add the PERIOD if it doesn't currently exist:



        if not exists(select 1 from sys.periods where object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


        This raised the error.




      2. Since the above didn't work, I wanted to make sure my IF statement was evaluating correctly so I tried:



        if 1=2
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


        But that raised the error as well.




      3. Use SET NOEXEC ON to stop execution of the code:



        set noexec ON
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
        set noexec OFF


        Didn't work. The ALTER TABLE still raised the error.




      4. Admit defeat and wrap it in a TRY/CATCH and just ignore the error:



        begin try
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
        end try
        begin catch
        end catch


        This raised the error too -- which I didn't expect since it was a level 16 and, according to the docs, a level 16 should go to the CATCH block.




      Is this a bug in Azure SQL Server? This is running on a Managed Instance. The @@VERSION reports:




      Microsoft SQL Azure (RTM) - 12.0.2000.8 Nov 2 2018 21:17:06 Copyright (C) 2018 Microsoft Corporation




      UPDATE:



      I can use a similar technique to skip adding columns that already exist without any issues:



      if not exists(select 1 from sys.columns where name = 'StartTime' and object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
      ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
      ADD StartTime DATETIME2 NOT NULL DEFAULT ('19000101 00:00:00.0000000')
      GO


      The above code only executes if the sysjobhistory does not contain the column StartTime. If it already does, the code does nothing and continues executing. The ALTER TABLE with ADD PERIOD always causes an execution error even if the code is inside an IF condition that evaluates to false.










      share|improve this question















      I'm trying to conditionally execute an ALTER TABLE command (this one, to be precise). However, I can't get the ADD PERIOD to be conditional and I suspect this might be a bug.



      Here's what I've tried to skip execution if the PERIOD already exists on the table. All of these raise the same error:




      Msg 13597, Level 16, State 2, Line xx



      Temporal SYSTEM_TIME period is already defined on table 'msdb.dbo.sysjobhistory'.






      1. Only add the PERIOD if it doesn't currently exist:



        if not exists(select 1 from sys.periods where object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


        This raised the error.




      2. Since the above didn't work, I wanted to make sure my IF statement was evaluating correctly so I tried:



        if 1=2
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)


        But that raised the error as well.




      3. Use SET NOEXEC ON to stop execution of the code:



        set noexec ON
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
        set noexec OFF


        Didn't work. The ALTER TABLE still raised the error.




      4. Admit defeat and wrap it in a TRY/CATCH and just ignore the error:



        begin try
        ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
        ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime)
        end try
        begin catch
        end catch


        This raised the error too -- which I didn't expect since it was a level 16 and, according to the docs, a level 16 should go to the CATCH block.




      Is this a bug in Azure SQL Server? This is running on a Managed Instance. The @@VERSION reports:




      Microsoft SQL Azure (RTM) - 12.0.2000.8 Nov 2 2018 21:17:06 Copyright (C) 2018 Microsoft Corporation




      UPDATE:



      I can use a similar technique to skip adding columns that already exist without any issues:



      if not exists(select 1 from sys.columns where name = 'StartTime' and object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
      ALTER TABLE [dbo].[sysjobhistory]
      ADD StartTime DATETIME2 NOT NULL DEFAULT ('19000101 00:00:00.0000000')
      GO


      The above code only executes if the sysjobhistory does not contain the column StartTime. If it already does, the code does nothing and continues executing. The ALTER TABLE with ADD PERIOD always causes an execution error even if the code is inside an IF condition that evaluates to false.







      sql-server azure-sql-database






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jan 2 at 22:08

























      asked Jan 2 at 19:31









      PatrickSteele

      1155




      1155






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          You need dynamic SQL for DDL like this.



          IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM sys.periods WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
          DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N''
          SET @sql += N'
          ALTER TABLE dbo.sysjobhistory
          ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime);'

          EXEC sys.sp_executesql @sql





          share|improve this answer

















          • 1




            @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
            – Martin Smith
            Jan 2 at 23:41



















          1














          Statement processing happens in several consecutive phases. Fist comes parsing, then binding, then optimization and finally execution.



          I suspect your problem originates at the binding phase. Here SQL Server maps tokens from the statement to objects in the database. Since it finds existing objects for the ones it is trying to create it throws and error. Why the development team chose to implement this branch of ALTER TABLE in binding rather than execution only they can say.



          The solution, as Erik says, is to use dynamic SQL. This creates a new "inner" batch which is only submitted for processing during the execution phase of the "outer" batch. Hence the checks are sure to pass (absent concurrent changes).






          share|improve this answer





















            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "182"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f226186%2fcant-stop-execution-of-add-period%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            You need dynamic SQL for DDL like this.



            IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM sys.periods WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
            DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N''
            SET @sql += N'
            ALTER TABLE dbo.sysjobhistory
            ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime);'

            EXEC sys.sp_executesql @sql





            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
              – Martin Smith
              Jan 2 at 23:41
















            3














            You need dynamic SQL for DDL like this.



            IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM sys.periods WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
            DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N''
            SET @sql += N'
            ALTER TABLE dbo.sysjobhistory
            ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime);'

            EXEC sys.sp_executesql @sql





            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
              – Martin Smith
              Jan 2 at 23:41














            3












            3








            3






            You need dynamic SQL for DDL like this.



            IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM sys.periods WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
            DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N''
            SET @sql += N'
            ALTER TABLE dbo.sysjobhistory
            ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime);'

            EXEC sys.sp_executesql @sql





            share|improve this answer












            You need dynamic SQL for DDL like this.



            IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM sys.periods WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('sysjobhistory'))
            DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N''
            SET @sql += N'
            ALTER TABLE dbo.sysjobhistory
            ADD PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (StartTime, EndTime);'

            EXEC sys.sp_executesql @sql






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jan 2 at 19:45









            Erik Darling

            21.1k1263103




            21.1k1263103








            • 1




              @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
              – Martin Smith
              Jan 2 at 23:41














            • 1




              @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
              – Martin Smith
              Jan 2 at 23:41








            1




            1




            @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
            – Martin Smith
            Jan 2 at 23:41




            @PatrickSteele ADD COLUMN and ADD CONSTRAINT appear to get deferred compilation whereas ADD PERIOD doesn't. I don't find any documentation stating this behaviour though for any of them. I guess technically not a bug as it isnt behaving differently from how it is documented to work.
            – Martin Smith
            Jan 2 at 23:41













            1














            Statement processing happens in several consecutive phases. Fist comes parsing, then binding, then optimization and finally execution.



            I suspect your problem originates at the binding phase. Here SQL Server maps tokens from the statement to objects in the database. Since it finds existing objects for the ones it is trying to create it throws and error. Why the development team chose to implement this branch of ALTER TABLE in binding rather than execution only they can say.



            The solution, as Erik says, is to use dynamic SQL. This creates a new "inner" batch which is only submitted for processing during the execution phase of the "outer" batch. Hence the checks are sure to pass (absent concurrent changes).






            share|improve this answer


























              1














              Statement processing happens in several consecutive phases. Fist comes parsing, then binding, then optimization and finally execution.



              I suspect your problem originates at the binding phase. Here SQL Server maps tokens from the statement to objects in the database. Since it finds existing objects for the ones it is trying to create it throws and error. Why the development team chose to implement this branch of ALTER TABLE in binding rather than execution only they can say.



              The solution, as Erik says, is to use dynamic SQL. This creates a new "inner" batch which is only submitted for processing during the execution phase of the "outer" batch. Hence the checks are sure to pass (absent concurrent changes).






              share|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                Statement processing happens in several consecutive phases. Fist comes parsing, then binding, then optimization and finally execution.



                I suspect your problem originates at the binding phase. Here SQL Server maps tokens from the statement to objects in the database. Since it finds existing objects for the ones it is trying to create it throws and error. Why the development team chose to implement this branch of ALTER TABLE in binding rather than execution only they can say.



                The solution, as Erik says, is to use dynamic SQL. This creates a new "inner" batch which is only submitted for processing during the execution phase of the "outer" batch. Hence the checks are sure to pass (absent concurrent changes).






                share|improve this answer












                Statement processing happens in several consecutive phases. Fist comes parsing, then binding, then optimization and finally execution.



                I suspect your problem originates at the binding phase. Here SQL Server maps tokens from the statement to objects in the database. Since it finds existing objects for the ones it is trying to create it throws and error. Why the development team chose to implement this branch of ALTER TABLE in binding rather than execution only they can say.



                The solution, as Erik says, is to use dynamic SQL. This creates a new "inner" batch which is only submitted for processing during the execution phase of the "outer" batch. Hence the checks are sure to pass (absent concurrent changes).







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                Michael Green

                14.2k82959




                14.2k82959






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f226186%2fcant-stop-execution-of-add-period%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                    Alcedinidae

                    Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]