Transactions & Consistency

A function that does two writes is one bug away from doing one. The DB-level transaction is the only thing that makes "all or nothing" actually true.

When to use

• Writing two or more DB mutations that must succeed together
• Reading a value, computing on it, and writing it back (read-modify-write)
• Money/credit transfers, inventory decrements, balance updates
• "Create user + create profile + create default workspace" flows
• Anywhere a crash mid-function would leave inconsistent state

When to skip

• Single-statement updates with no read-modify-write
• Pure read operations (use a snapshot or READ COMMITTED default)

The rule

Wrap every multi-step write that must be atomic in a transaction. No exceptions for "it'll probably be fine."

// BAD — second insert can fail; user exists with no profile
await db.user.create({ data: { email } })
await db.profile.create({ data: { userId, ... } })

// GOOD — both succeed or neither does
await db.$transaction(async (tx) => {
  const user = await tx.user.create({ data: { email } })
  await tx.profile.create({ data: { userId: user.id, ... } })
})

In Drizzle:

await db.transaction(async (tx) => { ... })

The rules

1. Read-modify-write needs a transaction OR a conditional update.

// BAD — classic lost-update bug
const account = await db.account.findUnique({ where: { id } })
const newBalance = account.balance - amount
await db.account.update({ where: { id }, data: { balance: newBalance } })
// Two concurrent withdrawals both read 100, both write 60. The DB ends up at 60. We lost 40.

// GOOD #1 — atomic increment in the DB
await db.account.update({
  where: { id, balance: { gte: amount } },
  data: { balance: { decrement: amount } },
})

// GOOD #2 — transaction with row lock
await db.$transaction(async (tx) => {
  const acct = await tx.$queryRaw`SELECT balance FROM account WHERE id = ${id} FOR UPDATE`
  if (acct[0].balance < amount) throw new InsufficientFunds()
  await tx.account.update({ where: { id }, data: { balance: { decrement: amount } } })
})

2. Pick the right isolation level. Default is rarely enough for money.

await db.$transaction(async (tx) => { ... }, {
  isolationLevel: 'Serializable', // Prisma
})

SERIALIZABLE can fail with retry-able serialization errors — your code must handle them (see rule 6).

3. Optimistic vs pessimistic — pick deliberately.

Optimistic (version column / WHERE version = ?): cheap, scales well, fits low-contention. The retry is your job.

const updated = await db.doc.updateMany({
  where: { id, version: currentVersion },
  data: { content, version: { increment: 1 } },
})
if (updated.count === 0) throw new ConflictError() // user must reload

Pessimistic (SELECT … FOR UPDATE): blocks other writers; right when contention is real (inventory of 1, account balance, sequence numbers).

Default to optimistic. Reach for pessimistic when you've measured contention or the consequences of a lost update are unacceptable.

4. Keep transactions short.

// BAD — third-party API call inside a transaction holding row locks
await db.$transaction(async (tx) => {
  const order = await tx.order.create({ data })
  await stripe.charges.create(...)  // 800ms of network blocking the lock
  await tx.order.update(...)
})

// GOOD — split. Charge first (with idempotency), record after.
const charge = await stripe.charges.create({ idempotencyKey, ... })
await db.$transaction(async (tx) => {
  const order = await tx.order.create({ data: { ..., chargeId: charge.id } })
  await tx.invoice.create({ data: { orderId: order.id, ... } })
})

Long transactions = long locks = stalled writes for everyone touching the same rows.

5. Never call external APIs inside a transaction.

Same reason as rule 4 plus: the third-party call can succeed and then your transaction can roll back. You charged the customer; your DB has no record. Pattern: charge first with an idempotency key, store the result, then commit. Roll back by issuing a refund — not by hoping the external side undoes itself.

6. Handle serialization failures with a retry loop.

Under SERIALIZABLE (and sometimes REPEATABLE READ), Postgres raises 40001 serialization_failure when conflicting tx histories can't be linearized. Retry the whole transaction:

async function withRetry<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>, max = 3): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    try { return await fn() }
    catch (e: any) {
      if (e.code !== '40001' || i === max - 1) throw e
      await sleep(50 * 2 ** i)
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable')
}

7. Idempotency for mutations that cross network boundaries.

If a mutation can be retried by the client (network hiccup, queue redelivery, double-click), the second call must not double-execute. Use an idempotency key (see api-route-hardening) keyed in the same DB so it's covered by the same transaction.

8. Multi-table reads for reports → snapshot.

A long report that reads from many tables needs a consistent point-in-time view, otherwise you'll sum invoices that exclude payments that exist. Use REPEATABLE READ or SERIALIZABLE, or take an explicit snapshot.

9. Distributed transactions are a trap.

Two-phase commit across services is brittle. The right answer for cross-service atomicity is idempotent steps + retries + a saga / outbox pattern. Pretend the network is unreliable (it is) and design each step to be safely retried.

10. The outbox pattern, in 5 lines.

When you need to "write to DB and emit an event together":

await db.$transaction(async (tx) => {
  await tx.order.create({ data })
  await tx.outboxEvent.create({ data: { type: 'order.created', payload: ... } })
})
// A separate worker reads from outboxEvent and publishes, marking each delivered.

Either both are committed (event will be delivered eventually) or neither is. No "we wrote the row but failed to emit the event."

War story

A "credit + debit" between user wallets used two update calls back-to-back, no transaction. Process killed (Vercel cold-boot timeout) between them. Sender debited, receiver not credited. Money disappeared. Customer support spent two days reconstructing 14 transfers from logs and reconciling balances by hand. One $transaction wrapper would have rolled back the debit on failure.

Quick checklist

• Multi-step writes wrapped in a transaction
• Read-modify-write uses atomic increment OR FOR UPDATE OR optimistic version check
• Money / inventory / counters use SERIALIZABLE (with retry) or atomic ops
• No external API calls inside a transaction
• Long-running work moved out of the tx
• Serialization failures retried with backoff
• Idempotency keys on retryable mutations
• Outbox pattern for "write + emit event" atomicity