SELECT FOR UPDATE differs inside and outside a pl/pgsql function (7.4) - Mailing list pgsql-bugs
From | Mark Shewmaker |
---|---|
Subject | SELECT FOR UPDATE differs inside and outside a pl/pgsql function (7.4) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1071680379.2082.21.camel@k9 Whole thread Raw |
Responses |
Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE differs inside and outside a pl/pgsql function (7.4)
|
List | pgsql-bugs |
Should there be a difference between the behavior of a "select for update" typed into psql directly versus "select into variable_name for update" done within a function? In other words: Is this a bug or a user misunderstanding: 1. Run the following commands to set up a table called mytable and a function called myfunction: ------------------------------ create table mytable (a int); insert into mytable values (1); insert into mytable values (2); insert into mytable values (3); create or replace function myfunction() returns integer as ' DECLARE myrow mytable%ROWTYPE; BEGIN LOOP select * into myrow from mytable limit 1 for update; if found then exit; end if; END LOOP; return myrow.a; end; ' language 'plpgsql'; ------------------------------ 2. Then open up two psql sessions and run the following commands: +-----------------------------------------+----------------------+ | psql Session A | psql Session B | +-----------------------------------------+----------------------+ |begin transaction; | | | | begin transaction; | |select * from mytable limit 1 for update;| | | | select myfunction(); | |delete from mytable where a=1; | | |commit; | | +-----------------------------------------+----------------------+ Session B's "select myfunction();" will hang, and it will continue to hang even after session A commits. Is this expected behavior? There are two ways to have session B not hang after the commit: 1. Don't do the "delete from mytable where a=1;". Session B's "select myfunction();" will then return after Session A commits, and with a value of 1. Or, 2. Instead of running "select myfunction();" in Session B, run two manual "select * from mytable limit 1 for update;"s. The first manual select-for-update will hang until Session A's transaction commits, after which the second manual select-for-update in session A will succeeds. This one really confuses me--should a function not be able to find a row when a manual command can? So I guess I'm curious as to: 1. Whether this is a bug or not. I'm guessing yes. (I expected the multiple select-for-update attempts in the function to the same behavior as multiple select-for-update's done manually. That is, I expected both types of B's select-for-updates selecting locked rows to hang until session A's commit, immediately fail to find any row, and then succeed on the next try. It would be nice if session B's first select were to have transparently succeeded on the a=2 row, something which I think would be a legal thing to happen, but as it's not what the documentation implies would happen I didn't expect that. In any event I did not expect the select-for-update within pgsql to continually fail to find a row.) 2. If there's a better way to have multiple transactions lock rows with select-for-update without any chance of the transaction erroring out, (such as would occur with serializable--and that would mean I'd have to have to move more of the logic to the application.) (I don't know of a way to avoid even the busy-looping--though I could call sleep functions from plperl or something to lower the cpu load. BTW, it would be nice to have some plpgsql-native sleep function just to more easily test for problems like this.) 3. If there's some really elegant solution out there, such as a way to do a "select for update where not locked" to search for rows no one has a conflicting lock on. (To me this would seem to be the best of all possible solutions.) I'm running version() "PostgreSQL 7.4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7)". -- Mark Shewmaker mark at primefactor dot com
pgsql-bugs by date: