Transactions and insertion ordering

**Martijn van Oosterhout** · Nov 23 '05, 01:08 AM

Re: Transactions and insertion ordering

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:[color=blue]
> 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 "serializab le" 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[/color]

--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana. org> http://svana.org/kleptog/[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAyDTVY5T wig3Ge+YRAjwZAJ 0RhFkKEDuooL0p1 Qt26Wx24/5wDQCcDEwj
BEY7PEFrpP7qlBt CRzhsf2U=
=/RJx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

**Martijn van Oosterhout** · Nov 23 '05, 01:08 AM

Re: Transactions and insertion ordering

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:[color=blue]
> 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 "serializab le" 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[/color]

--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana. org> http://svana.org/kleptog/[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAyDTVY5T wig3Ge+YRAjwZAJ 0RhFkKEDuooL0p1 Qt26Wx24/5wDQCcDEwj
BEY7PEFrpP7qlBt CRzhsf2U=
=/RJx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

**Bruno Wolff III** · Nov 23 '05, 01:08 AM

Re: Transactions and insertion ordering

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 20:15:53 +1000,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana. org> wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

**Bruno Wolff III** · Nov 23 '05, 01:08 AM

Re: Transactions and insertion ordering

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 20:15:53 +1000,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana. org> wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

**James Pharaoh** · Nov 23 '05, 01:08 AM

Re: Transactions and insertion ordering

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:47, Bruno Wolff III wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

**James Pharaoh** · Nov 23 '05, 01:08 AM

Re: Transactions and insertion ordering

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:47, Bruno Wolff III wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings