Improve SQL Server insertion logic and other update pipeline optimizations

[roji]

Also make RETURNING the default INSERT strategy for retrieving db-generated values (for other providers).

Fixes #27372
Fixes #27503
Fixes #24835

[AndriySvyryd]

Validate that trigger names are unique across the hierarchy and across the schema.
In general, triggers are more like check constraints than sequences, consider separating Name and ModelName. The former can differ from table to table.

[roji]

Validate that trigger names are unique across the hierarchy and across the schema.

Triggers generally aren't in any schema (#27372 (comment)), but are considered scoped to their table. However, SQL Server/SQLite do not allow two triggers with the same name in the same database (even when they're on different tables); PostgreSQL does allow this. So I'm adding uniquification in SharedTableConvention (like for indexes, check constraints). Makes sense?

In general, triggers are more like check constraints than sequences, consider separating Name and ModelName. The former can differ from table to table.

Just want to confirm my understanding on why check constraints have model and database names, but not sequence... Is this because (on some databases) you can have multiple check constraints (or triggers) with the same database name (i.e. on different tables), but they still require unique model names so they can be referred to and modified in model-building? Whereas you can never have more than one sequence with the same database name (since they're database-scoped), so we can collapse the database and model names into one?

[AndriySvyryd]

So I'm adding uniquification in SharedTableConvention (like for indexes, check constraints). Makes sense?

Yes, but we should also add validation like ValidateSharedCheckConstraintCompatibility.RelationalModelValidator to throw a helpful exception message.

Just want to confirm my understanding on why check constraints have model and database names, but not sequence...

It's because they are declared on entity types and therefore can span over multiple tables, but would require a different name for each (or being excluded for some of them)

[AndriySvyryd]

Also add support in RelationalCSharpRuntimeAnnotationCodeGenerator and a test in CSharpRuntimeModelCodeGeneratorTest

[roji]

@AndriySvyryd I think I've addressed most of the above, though I'm sure there's stuff still remaining (it's late 😬).

[ghost]

Hello @roji!

Because this pull request has the auto-merge label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.

p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (@msftbot) and give me an instruction to get started! Learn more here.

[ghost]

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this

From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at [email protected] to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.

[ghost]

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this

From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at [email protected] to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.