Message-ID: <4C46080A.4030904@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:33:14 -0600
From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100520 SUSE/3.0.5 Lightning/1.0b1
	Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problem with pg_try_advisory_lock and two connections (seemingly)
	getting the same lock
References: <AANLkTilpuElO1FgaZfe3cBZ9RoM5yYvIU8D8TanvRO1I@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilpuElO1FgaZfe3cBZ9RoM5yYvIU8D8TanvRO1I@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You could implement an optimistic lock strategy by placing a 'version'
column in the table and increment it on successful 'check-out' and test
against the value the user has as he/she tried to act on the record.  If
some else got there first the second user fails to check-out the queue
item.  Triggers could do the work.

On 07/19/2010 08:06 PM, Brett Hoerner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I currently have a simple queue written ontop of Postgres.  Jobs are
> inserted and workers periodically check for jobs they can do, do them,
> and then delete the rows.  pg_try_advisory_lock is used to (attempt
> to) stop two workers from doing the same job.
> 
> (I'm working on moving to a "real" messaging queue right now, this is
> more a point of curiosity and education now.)
> 
> Here is my queue table,
> 
> CREATE TABLE queue (
>     id serial NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
>     rcvd timestamp with time zone,
>     sent timestamp with time zone,
>     host character varying(32),
>     job character varying(32),
>     arg text
> );
> 
> Here is an example query,
> 
> SELECT q.*
> FROM (SELECT id, job, arg
>       FROM queue
>       WHERE job = 'foo' OR job = 'bar'
>       OFFSET 0) AS q
> WHERE pg_try_advisory_lock(1, q.id)
> LIMIT 10
> 
> (For information on OFFSET 0 see:
> http://blog.endpoint.com/2009/04/offset-0-ftw.html)
> 
> Now if I have two workers running I will periodically see that each
> worker gets a row with the same q.id (and thus does the work).  How is
> that possible?  The outer query seemingly does a WHERE on an
> advisory_lock.
> 
> Does anyone have any ideas?  Am I grossly misusing advisory_locks?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brett
>