Обсуждение: Is what I want possible and if so how?
Hi, I have a table with events that must be handled by multiple clients. It does not matter which client handles an event, but no two clients may handle the same event and an event may only handled once. A client can only determine the availability of an event by querying the database. The access to the table should be queue-like with synchronization. My idea was that a client should do a "SELECT" on the table and mark the selected records as "being handled" to avoid double handling. I have read the manual about "LOCK", "SET TRANSACTION" and "SELECT...FOR UPDATE", but from what I understand, they cannot prevent a "SELECT" from another client, based on the "SELECT". Is there a way to make this possible? TIA -- Groeten, Joost Kraaijeveld Askesis B.V. Molukkenstraat 14 6524NB Nijmegen tel: 024-3888063 / 06-51855277 fax: 024-3608416 web: www.askesis.nl
Joost Kraaijeveld <J.Kraaijeveld@Askesis.nl> writes: > I have read the manual about "LOCK", "SET TRANSACTION" and "SELECT...FOR > UPDATE", but from what I understand, they cannot prevent a "SELECT" from > another client, based on the "SELECT". > > Is there a way to make this possible? Have all the clients use SELECT FOR UPDATE. -Doug
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 07:54 -0400, Douglas McNaught wrote: > Have all the clients use SELECT FOR UPDATE. OK, thanks, your answer lead me to a re-read of the docs and I think I found a way to do it. -- Groeten, Joost Kraaijeveld Askesis B.V. Molukkenstraat 14 6524NB Nijmegen tel: 024-3888063 / 06-51855277 fax: 024-3608416 web: www.askesis.nl
Joost Kraaijeveld <J.Kraaijeveld@Askesis.nl> writes:
> I have a table with events that must be handled by multiple clients. It
> does not matter which client handles an event, but no two clients may
> handle the same event and an event may only handled once. A client can
> only determine the availability of an event by querying the database.
> The access to the table should be queue-like with synchronization.
> My idea was that a client should do a "SELECT" on the table and mark the
> selected records as "being handled" to avoid double handling.
> I have read the manual about "LOCK", "SET TRANSACTION" and "SELECT...FOR
> UPDATE", but from what I understand, they cannot prevent a "SELECT" from
> another client, based on the "SELECT".
> Is there a way to make this possible?
Sure, but everybody has to use SELECT FOR UPDATE and/or UPDATE.
For instance, do this in READ COMMITTED mode:
begin;
select jobid from queue
where status = 'waiting'
order by priority
limit 1
for update;
[ if no row returned, rollback, sleep a bit, try again ]
update queue set status = 'busy' where jobid = 'prev result';
commit;
Once TX1 has selected a row for update, it's locked and TX2 will sleep
until TX1 commits before selecting it; then it will see the change of
status and TX2's select will not return the row. This isn't entirely
perfect because LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE: TX2's select will return
nothing, rather than selecting the next available row as you might wish.
So you might want to retry the select several times before deciding
there's nothing to do.
Also, an index on priority would be a good idea to make the select
fast.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 17:03, Tom Lane wrote: > status and TX2's select will not return the row. This isn't entirely > perfect because LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE: TX2's select will return > nothing, rather than selecting the next available row as you might wish. > So you might want to retry the select several times before deciding > there's nothing to do. We do have a table like this, and in fact we did observe this behavior that if multiple clients ask for a row at the same time, the first gets something and the rest nothing. We're actually still looking for an optimal solution for this... For now, we added a random field to the table (with values 0-9), and the clients asks with a where clause for a random value in this field. This way there's a good chance the clients will not tip on each other's toes (i.e. the row asked for is not locked by another client). It is still necessary to retry a few times, but after introducing this random number mechanism we did notice a significant performance improvement in emptying the queue... so it must work somehow. It's true that we usually have 10-15 clients constantly polling the queue, and the queue itself is usually loaded with at least a few hundred tasks, so the random numbers are reasonably distributed to be effective. Now I wonder if there's some other way to get the same result without additional column in the table ? Cheers, Csaba.
Joost, Everyone has to do a select for update, then they will be serialized. Dave On 3-Jul-06, at 6:45 AM, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > Hi, > > I have a table with events that must be handled by multiple > clients. It > does not matter which client handles an event, but no two clients may > handle the same event and an event may only handled once. A client > can > only determine the availability of an event by querying the database. > The access to the table should be queue-like with synchronization. > > My idea was that a client should do a "SELECT" on the table and > mark the > selected records as "being handled" to avoid double handling. > > I have read the manual about "LOCK", "SET TRANSACTION" and > "SELECT...FOR > UPDATE", but from what I understand, they cannot prevent a "SELECT" > from > another client, based on the "SELECT". > > Is there a way to make this possible? > > TIA > > > -- > Groeten, > > Joost Kraaijeveld > Askesis B.V. > Molukkenstraat 14 > 6524NB Nijmegen > tel: 024-3888063 / 06-51855277 > fax: 024-3608416 > web: www.askesis.nl > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >