Обсуждение: PostgreSQL transaction locking problem

Jeff Martin
704 Torrey Lane, Apartment D
Boalsburg, PA 16827
H814-466-7791
jeff@dgjc.org
www.dgjc.org

"Jeff Martin" <jeff@dgjc.org> writes:
> LOCK TABLE Test IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;

> /* This function should be able to operate concurrently BUT CANNOT */

How you figure that?  EXCLUSIVE lock is clearly documented to be
self-conflicting; so only one process can hold it at a time.  See
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/locking-tables.html

If concurrency is important I'd suggest generating your ID values using
a sequence generator, rather than trying to build your own
implementation.

            regards, tom lane

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Jeff Martin" <jeff@dgjc.org> writes:
> > LOCK TABLE Test IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;
>
> > /* This function should be able to operate concurrently BUT CANNOT */
>
> How you figure that?  EXCLUSIVE lock is clearly documented to be
> self-conflicting; so only one process can hold it at a time.  See
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/locking-tables.html
>
> If concurrency is important I'd suggest generating your ID values using
> a sequence generator, rather than trying to build your own
> implementation.

I actually thought that he's complaining about the fact that it gives him
the same id twice if he runs it in two transactions rather than the delay
until the first commits.

Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> I actually thought that he's complaining about the fact that it gives him
> the same id twice if he runs it in two transactions rather than the delay
> until the first commits.

As written, he gets a delay (because of the LOCK) *and* duplicate IDs
(because with the serializable isolation level, the second xact can't
see the row inserted by the first, even after waiting for it to commit).
Worst of both worlds.

There's a reason why we provide sequences as primitive objects: you
can't build an equivalent behavior very easily under MVCC rules.

            regards, tom lane

>I actually thought that he's complaining about the fact that it gives him
>the same id twice if he runs it in two transactions rather than
>the delay until the first commits.
yes that is the problem.

>As written, he gets a delay (because of the LOCK) *and* duplicate IDs
>(because with the serializable isolation level, the second xact can't
i get the same error whether using "read commited" or "serializable".

>see the row inserted by the first, even after waiting for it to commit).
>Worst of both worlds.
>There's a reason why we provide sequences as primitive objects: you
>can't build an equivalent behavior very easily under MVCC rules.
first the case of my example is just that, an example.  i want to learn to
use transactions and locking so that i can do the following....

1. run multiple processes in different transactions,
2. executing the same pg/sql functions which,
3. need to read data at the beginning of the function that is committed,
4. perform calculations and write a result.
5. thus competing processes will need to wait for each to commit the result
in turn.

If I could figure this out the code in my first posting would work.  Or even
if I could
get the transaction to bail with a transaction error of some sort, but
waiting would be best.

You say it cannot be done easily, but can it be done?  This seems like an
essential feature
of locking to me.

Jeff

Jeff Martin
704 Torrey Lane, Apartment D
Boalsburg, PA 16827
H814-466-7791
jeff@dgjc.org <mailto:jeff@dgjc.org>
www.dgjc.org <http://www.dgjc.org>

"Jeff Martin" <jeff@dgjc.org> writes:
>> As written, he gets a delay (because of the LOCK) *and* duplicate IDs
>> (because with the serializable isolation level, the second xact can't

> i get the same error whether using "read commited" or "serializable".

[ thinks about that... ]  Yeah, probably so, because SetQuerySnapshot
is presently executed only in the outer command loop; there won't be
one between the LOCK and the SELECT inside your function.  So the SELECT
still doesn't think that the other xact has committed.  You could make
it work (in read-committed mode) if you issued the LOCK from the
application before calling the function.

There's been some discussion about whether SetQuerySnapshot should occur
between statements in plpgsql functions or not --- AFAIR, there were
arguments on both sides, and we haven't come to a consensus yet.  But
the bottom line is that in the present implementation, a function cannot
see the effects of transactions that commit while it's running.

            regards, tom lane

Jeff Martin wrote:
>
> first the case of my example is just that, an example.  i want to learn to
> use transactions and locking so that i can do the following....
>
> 1. run multiple processes in different transactions,
> 2. executing the same pg/sql functions which,
> 3. need to read data at the beginning of the function that is committed,
> 4. perform calculations and write a result.
> 5. thus competing processes will need to wait for each to commit the result
> in turn.

I kind of missed the beginning of this thread, so pardon me if I'm way
off base. But the behavior you describe just requires the use of
SELECT...FOR UPDATE. The second transaction will block awaiting the
COMMIT/ABORT of the first.

Session #1:

BEGIN;
SELECT balance FROM checking FOR UPDATE;

Session #2:

BEGIN;
SELECT balance FROM checking FOR UPDATE;

 ^== Blocks until Session #1 COMMITS/ABORTS


Hope that helps,

Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com

Tom Lane writes:
> [ thinks about that... ]  Yeah, probably so, because SetQuerySnapshot
> is presently executed only in the outer command loop; there won't be
> one between the LOCK and the SELECT inside your function.  So the SELECT
> still doesn't think that the other xact has committed.  You could make
> it work (in read-committed mode) if you issued the LOCK from the
> application before calling the function.
Thanks.  That is the answer.  I couldn't get any locking mechanism to work
at all in my application because my entire db API is encapsulated in pg/sql
functions.

> There's been some discussion about whether SetQuerySnapshot should occur
> between statements in plpgsql functions or not --- AFAIR, there were
One argument for doing this as you say is just for guys like me.  I am
writing a PHP/PostgreSQL application and have made the decision to push as
much business logic as possible into pg/sql functions.  I did this to 1)
keep the PHP code lighter weight, 2) reduce the communication between my
Apache server and Postgres for any one database function, and 3) make my
code more portable and easier to use from other systems.  That is other
non-PHP code writers with have less code to port in order to tap into all my
business logic because it is all encapsulated within pg/sql.  Thus I would
argue to take the snapshot between statements within pg/sql.  Otherwise I
cannot make any locking decisions from within a function.  Of course I'm not
a developer in PostgreSQL so I'm not aware of the arguments against the
idea.

Here is a statement for your comment.  I have felt that one argument against
my decision to push more business logic into pg/sql is that the postgres
server is then running all this code. That would be OK, but I think I may
lose some advantages of multi-processing servers.  If Apache was running the
code encapsulated as PHP functions I can tune my Apache server to have
several processes running concurrently and even on several machines
independent from the database server.  Thus in a multi-user situation I
gain.  However, can I tune postgres to run several server processes as well?
Can postgres run concurrent server processes in both persistant and
non-persistant connection situations?  I am beginning to think I should not
have encapsulated my business logic in pg/sql but in PHP functions instead.

> arguments on both sides, and we haven't come to a consensus yet.  But
> the bottom line is that in the present implementation, a function cannot
> see the effects of transactions that commit while it's running.
Understood.  Thanks.

Jeff

Jeff Martin
704 Torrey Lane, Apartment D
Boalsburg, PA 16827
H814-466-7791
jeff@dgjc.org <mailto:jeff@dgjc.org>
www.dgjc.org <http://www.dgjc.org>

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Jeff Martin" <jeff@dgjc.org> writes:
> >> As written, he gets a delay (because of the LOCK) *and* duplicate IDs
> >> (because with the serializable isolation level, the second xact can't
>
> > i get the same error whether using "read commited" or "serializable".
>
> [ thinks about that... ]  Yeah, probably so, because SetQuerySnapshot
> is presently executed only in the outer command loop; there won't be
> one between the LOCK and the SELECT inside your function.  So the SELECT
> still doesn't think that the other xact has committed.  You could make
> it work (in read-committed mode) if you issued the LOCK from the
> application before calling the function.
>
> There's been some discussion about whether SetQuerySnapshot should occur
> between statements in plpgsql functions or not --- AFAIR, there were
> arguments on both sides, and we haven't come to a consensus yet.

I've always been on the side that the Snapshot should be changed
in read-committed mode except the sequence of SELECT statements.

1) AFAIR no one was able to understand the current behavior.
   For whom the current spec is ?
2) IIRC the current spec comes from a demand to keep a
   consistency of queries with functions. But where was
   the proof of the possibility to keep a consistency ?
   IMHO it's impossible to guarantee a consistency of
   queries with functions which have side effects and
   the result would be implementation-dependent.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

At 08:51 PM 02-02-2002 -0800, Jeff Martin wrote:
>independent from the database server.  Thus in a multi-user situation I
>gain.  However, can I tune postgres to run several server processes as well?
>Can postgres run concurrent server processes in both persistant and
>non-persistant connection situations?  I am beginning to think I should not
>have encapsulated my business logic in pg/sql but in PHP functions instead.

The persistent and nonpersistent stuff is done by PHP not by postgresql.
You just have to configure Postgresql to support the number of concurrent
backends you need.

The potential performance problem in your case is it's not as easy to scale
up the postgresql box - you are still limited to running it on one server
AFAIK. So if more of your processing is done by postgresql you'd hit the
limit sooner. Whereas if the PHP scripts bore the brunt of the CPU load,
then you could probably add cheap machines for the PHP stuff. That said has
anyone got postgresql running on an IBM mainframe :)? Pgbench figures would
be interesting...

Cheerio,
Link.

I have a problem running postgresql, refers to the postgresql user. Say X
has created postgresql user "postgresX", is a member of the group "class",
I am also a member of the group "class" ,have rwx permissions on the group
"class", and my user account is "user2". I am unable to run the postgresql
that X has created. How do I run X's postgresql , by using my login user2?

also, if X has created a postgresql user "postgreX", change he change this
user to that I can also have the same access to postgres that he has
installed?
Specifically, this is the error that Iget:

csil-sunb23|/usr/dcs/csil-projects/cs411/cs411g3/postgres/bin|[142]% postmaster
 -B 32 -N 16 -D /usr/dcs/csil-projects/cs411/cs411g3/postgres/data
>FATAL 1:  configuration file `postgresql.conf' has wrong permissions
>
>cs411ta2|csil-sunb23|/usr/dcs/csil-projects/cs411/cs411g3/postgres/bin|[143]%
>

I am logged in as "cs411ta2" to run postgresql created by "cs411g3". I am
a have the rwx permissions on the group "ta411" that both "cs411ta2" and
"cs411g3" belong to.


thanks