On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 12:59, Jeremy Schneider <schnei...@ardentperf.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 2020, at 19:06, Paul McGarry <p...@paulmcgarry.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think I can use setval(), because it risks making sequences go
> backwards, eg:
> >
> > 1) Check values
> > DB1sequence: 1234
> > DB2sequence: 1233 (1 behind)
> > 2) setval('DB2sequence',1234);
> >
> > but if between (1) and (2) there are 2 nextval(DB2sequence) calls on
> another process, (2) would take the sequence back from 1235 to 1234 and I
> would end up trying to create a duplicate key ID from the sequence.
>
> An ability to “lock” the sequence momentarily would give you the tool you
> need, but I don’t think it’s there.
>
> Total hack, but if your application or users can retry when the rare error
> is encountered then one idea is to rename the sequence momentarily while
> you do the setval() then rename it back. Do an initial check without
> renaming, then re-check after renaming and before the setval() call.
>
> If you put retry logic into your application then make sure to include
> back-off logic so you don’t get an outage induced by thundering herd.
>
This is increasingly looking like a set of attempts to intentionally abuse
what sequences were designed for.
The use-case where you need a lock on the value so that there can't
possibly be a hole in the sequence points at the notion of having some
other kind of a function that takes out a lock on a table, and serially
gives out "MAX+1" as the next value.
That isn't a very difficult function to write; the problem with it is that
that sort of function will forcibly serialize all inserts through the
function+table lock that is giving out "MAX+1" values. That's going to be
WAY slower than using a sequence object, and about 98% of the time, people
will prefer the sequence object, particularly because it's about 98% faster.
I'm not quite sure if anyone has put out there a standard-ish idiom for
this; that seems like a not TOO difficult "exercise for the user."
There will definitely be more failure cases, and *wildly* more fighting, in
a concurrent environment, over tuple locks.
- An obvious failure is that if one connection asks for the new MAX+1, gets
it, and then the transaction fails, for some later, out-of-relevant-scope,
reason, you'll still potentially get some "holes" in the series of values.
- If there are 10 connections trying to get MAX+1 concurrently, only one
can get it at a time, and that connection can't relinquish the lock until
its transaction has completed, and the 9 must wait, regardless of how much
work the "winner" still has to do.
These are amongst the reasons why people conclude they *don't* want that
kind of functionality.
It makes me think that the problem needs to be taken back to that initial
point of "I think I need some somewhat coordinated sequences", and poke at
what the *real* requirement is there, and why someone thinks that the
values should be "somewhat coordinated." Something seems off there.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
