>-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John D. Burger >Sent: zaterdag 7 april 2007 2:04 >To: Postgres General >Subject: [GENERAL] New to concurrency > >For the first time, I find myself wanting to use some of PG's >concurrency control stuff, and I could use some advice. > >I have requests showing up in a database, and I have one or >more servers picking these up with listen/notice. The >requests go into a table with a status column, which is >initially NULL, so a server finds requests to process like so: > > begin; > select id from requests where status is null order by ts limit 1; > >(ts is a timestamp column - process the earliest request first.) > >A server takes responsibility for a request by setting the >status for the id it got with the previous query: > > update requests set status = 'start' where qid = 42 and >status is null; > commit; > >My client library (Python pgdb) lets me know how many rows got >updated, in this case 1, if the server set the status, or 0 if >that request's status is no longer NULL, like if some other >server picked it up in the interim. > >Now I know that this last bit is not really any protection >against two servers both thinking they should process the same >request. I suspect I want to use SELECT FOR UPDATE in the >first query - will that be sufficient in this situation? That should indeed work. SELECT FOR UPDATE will take an exclusive lock on the row, conflicting with any other lock. There could be some resource contention though... There are a few more tricks and this must be handled with extreme care. Obviously the most simple solution is to have a single agent handle dispatching of tasks, making this at least less prone to mistakes or oversights. BEGIN; CREATE TABLE request ( id serial NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, status character varying(10) DEFAULT NULL ); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); INSERT INTO request(status) VALUES (NULL); COMMIT; Now we start the request with status NULL and the earliest ID (similar to your timestamp). We do this for two transactions: T1 and T2... T1: BEGIN; T2: BEGIN; T1: SELECT id FROM request WHERE status IS NULL ORDER BY id LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE; T2: SELECT id FROM request WHERE status IS NULL ORDER BY id LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE; -- T2 will block now... T1: UPDATE request SET status = 'start' WHERE id = 1; T1: COMMIT; T2: Will return no value at this point (8.2.1), so T2 will have to retry. If you want to avoid retries a slightly different approach is required. You can do it similar to how its normally done in other software: Take a 'global' exclusive lock for dequeuing. Another table or row can be designated for synchronization (do SELECT FOR UPDATE or LOCK TABLE EXCLUSIVE on it). If you have only low volume, even a exclusive table lock will work. I'm not sure whether you can do it correctly with an advisory lock, as its not released at commit time, but require you to do so explicitly. This seems to give a risk of requiring a retry or an additional transaction. Note that this requires READ COMMITED isolation level, a serializable lock will result in 'can't serialize' errors and one must do retries. Probably you want to wrap it up in a stored procedure (plpgsql), as this makes the process go much faster due to a reduction in round-trips. Fewer round-trips mean less time is required during which the lock is held, reducing contention. Obviously the database is still no match for an purposely build dispatcher, as it can control its locks with much finer (time) granularity and the overhead is much much smaller (e.g. transaction setup/commit and relative complex locking protocol). - Joris
