On 4/22/11 8:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig James<craig_james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 4/22/11 1:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig James<craig_james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
select objectid from archive where db_id is null limit 1 for update
The interaction between LIMIT and FOR UPDATE changed in 9.0 ... what
PG version are you using?
8.4.4
Well, note what it says in the 8.4 SELECT reference page:
Caution
It is possible for a SELECT command using both LIMIT and FOR
UPDATE/SHARE clauses to return fewer rows than specified by
LIMIT. This is because LIMIT is applied first. The command
selects the specified number of rows, but might then block
trying to obtain a lock on one or more of them. Once the SELECT
unblocks, the row might have been deleted or updated so that it
does not meet the query WHERE condition anymore, in which case
it will not be returned.
I think what's probably happening to you is you're getting a NULL not
because there isn't a matching row, but because somebody is updating the
first matching row underneath you and then the LIMIT prevents finding
any other matches. However, that pseudo-code is too pseudo to tell
whether this theory is correct.
Thanks, it sounds like this is exactly what's happening. It happens very rarely (a few times per month), so this makes sense.
I think I just need a two-step approach:
$object_id = $dbh->selectrow_array("select min(objectid) from archive where db_id is null");
if ($object_id) {
$db_id = $dbh->selectrow_array("select db_id from archive where objectid = $object_id for update");
... double check that db_id is still NULL, repeat if someone else grabbed it...
}
(9.0 handles these situations in a less unintuitive fashion, btw.)
We'll be migrating soon, thanks.
Craig
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
