Hmm. So this whole tombstone thing could also fail? What's the probability?
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 29, 6:19 pm, prgmratlarge <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been thinking of using the fact that taskqueue names cannot be > > duplicated to my advantage. But how reliable is this "fact." Is there > > ANY chance that the taskqueue will indeed be enqueued again? > > You should not absolutely rely on task names to ensure only-once > semantics. It is fairly reliable, but is definitely best effort only > - in exceptional circumstances (e.g. mostly around the time we > failover to a different data center) it is possible for the task to be > created (and run) twice. This was a conscious design decision: it > gives us low latency task creation. If you need guaranteed only-once > semantics then you'll need to use datastore to ensure the named task > is only run once. > > Peter > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-appengine%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
