Transactions and insertion ordering
Hi,
I'm trying to work out how to make sure things are read from a table in
a consistent order. The table represents a queue of items and also the
history of those items.
Even with "serializable" transaction isolation I can begin two
transactions, insert a record in each, commit the second transaction
first. This second record is now visible and can be read from the queue.
But when I commit the first this one appears before the second one. This
could then be read from the queue second but when I rescan the table to
view history it looks like it was read first.
Are there any ways to make this work a little more intuitively?
Basically I guess I want to be able to model a queue effectively.
James
nextval() should return value in the order they were called, rather
than commit time. I hope you're not relying on the unordered results of
a table scan remaining stable. Tables have no intrinsic "order", only
one inposed by an external sequence.
Hope this helps,
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:28:50AM +0100, James Pharaoh wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to work out how to make sure things are read from a table in
a consistent order. The table represents a queue of items and also the
history of those items.Even with "serializable" transaction isolation I can begin two
transactions, insert a record in each, commit the second transaction
first. This second record is now visible and can be read from the queue.
But when I commit the first this one appears before the second one. This
could then be read from the queue second but when I rescan the table to
view history it looks like it was read first.Are there any ways to make this work a little more intuitively?
Basically I guess I want to be able to model a queue effectively.James
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Show quoted text
Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 20:15:53 +1000,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
nextval() should return value in the order they were called, rather
than commit time. I hope you're not relying on the unordered results of
a table scan remaining stable. Tables have no intrinsic "order", only
one inposed by an external sequence.
This isn't really guarenteed with nextval. I think it will work if you
are just reserving one value at a time (which is the default).
I think the real problem is that the original poster needs to precisely
define what determines order. If the precise definition is transaction
commit order, I think that is going to be hard to do exactly right.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:47, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I think the real problem is that the original poster needs to precisely
define what determines order. If the precise definition is transaction
commit order, I think that is going to be hard to do exactly right.
Yes, that is what I want. So I can guarantee that the order of the IDs
in the database will be the same as the order in which they are taken
out of the queue.
I think I've come up with a reasonable solution now though. I can lock
the record representing the queue in another table FOR UPDATE and then
do the insert, then no other process will be able to gain that lock
until I complete. Best bit is other items can still insert concurrently,
but only one per queue, which is exactly what I was after.
Thanks for the help anyway ;-)
James