Re: Lock ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and Select question ! - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Alan Acosta |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Lock ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and Select question ! |
Date | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikeU_Og9NQb1J6YPXycZW5WSGHf93-EmEu4sLB5@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Lock ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and Select question ! (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>) |
Responses |
Re: Lock ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and Select question !
|
List | pgsql-general |
I really appreciate your help Andrew, and yep, i already starto to feel some pain lol. I suppose is true but is better to ask, SELECT FOR UPDATE is faster than LOCK ?
Thanks for the recommendations, i will check them ^_^
Cheers,
Alan Acosta
Thanks for the recommendations, i will check them ^_^
Cheers,
Alan Acosta
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:12:30PM -0500, Alan Acosta wrote:Ah. Well, then, yeah, I think you're going to have some pain. See more below.
> My application is trying to generate a numbered place for a client inside a
> bus, and to avoid to sell the place number "5" to two people, so i need to
> avoid that two sellers to sell the same place to same time, when i start my
> project, i read about table lock and choose ACCESS EXCLUSIVE, cause blocks
> everything, in that time seems safe :p, but now i have more and more sellers
> and the application is throwing a lot deadlocks in simple SELECTs, i check
> my logs and notice that was because ACCESS EXCLUSIVE is taking a little more
> time now, and deadlocks arise !
> *Table 13-2. Conflicting lock modes*> Requested Lock ModeCurrent Lock ModeACCESS SHAREROW SHAREROW EXCLUSIVESHAREShare does not, but it does block other writes. See the text in the manual:
> UPDATE EXCLUSIVESHARESHARE ROW EXCLUSIVEEXCLUSIVEACCESS EXCLUSIVEACCESS
> SHARE XROW SHARE XXROW EXCLUSIVE XXXXSHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE
> XXXXXSHARE XX XXXSHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE XXXXXXEXCLUSIVE XXXXXXXACCESS
> EXCLUSIVEXXXXXXXX
> I can see that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and EXCLUSIVE blocks each other on
> different transactions at different threads, but SHARE don't,
SHARE
Conflicts with the ROW EXCLUSIVE, SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, SHARE
ROW EXCLUSIVE, EXCLUSIVE, and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock modes. This
mode protects a table against concurrent data changes.
But I still don't think that's going to scale.
I think what you probably want is to SELECT FOR UPDATE the row you're
aiming to update later. Alternatively, you could use some sort of
pessimistic locking strategy using either a field on the row or an
advisory lock. For the latter, see the manual. For the former, it's
something like this:
- create a sequence seq.
- add an integer column newcol (with a default of 0) to your
table.
- when you select, make sure you include newcol. Suppose it's
value is 0 in the row you want.
- when you sell the seat, UPDATE the row SET newcol =
nextval('seq') WHERE newcol = _previous_newcol_value [and some
other criteria, like the seat number or whatever]
- now, either you affect some number of rows >0, which means you
made a sale, or else 0 rows are affected (because some other
transaction sold this seat at the same time). In the latter
case, you have to try a new seat.
Hope that helps,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
pgsql-general by date: