From fcff8a575198478023ada8a48e13b50f70054766 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kevin Grittner Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:12:35 -0500 Subject: Detect SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations While prior to this patch the user-visible effect on the database of any set of successfully committed serializable transactions was always consistent with some one-at-a-time order of execution of those transactions, the presence of declarative constraints could allow errors to occur which were not possible in any such ordering, and developers had no good workarounds to prevent user-facing errors where they were not necessary or desired. This patch adds a check for serialization failure ahead of duplicate key checking so that if a developer explicitly (redundantly) checks for the pre-existing value they will get the desired serialization failure where the problem is caused by a concurrent serializable transaction; otherwise they will get a duplicate key error. While it would be better if the reads performed by the constraints could count as part of the work of the transaction for serialization failure checking, and we will hopefully get there some day, this patch allows a clean and reliable way for developers to work around the issue. In many cases existing code will already be doing the right thing for this to "just work". Author: Thomas Munro, with minor editing of docs by me Reviewed-by: Marko Tiikkaja, Kevin Grittner --- doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) (limited to 'doc/src') diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml index 6352e12ee1e..f2272bc8658 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml @@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transact first. In PostgreSQL these locks do not cause any blocking and therefore can not play any part in causing a deadlock. They are used to identify and flag dependencies - among concurrent serializable transactions which in certain combinations + among concurrent Serializable transactions which in certain combinations can lead to serialization anomalies. In contrast, a Read Committed or Repeatable Read transaction which wants to ensure data consistency may need to take out a lock on an entire table, which could block other @@ -679,12 +679,13 @@ ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transact Consistent use of Serializable transactions can simplify development. - The guarantee that any set of concurrent serializable transactions will - have the same effect as if they were run one at a time means that if - you can demonstrate that a single transaction, as written, will do the - right thing when run by itself, you can have confidence that it will - do the right thing in any mix of serializable transactions, even without - any information about what those other transactions might do. It is + The guarantee that any set of successfully committed concurrent + Serializable transactions will have the same effect as if they were run + one at a time means that if you can demonstrate that a single transaction, + as written, will do the right thing when run by itself, you can have + confidence that it will do the right thing in any mix of Serializable + transactions, even without any information about what those other + transactions might do, or it will not successfully commit. It is important that an environment which uses this technique have a generalized way of handling serialization failures (which always return with a SQLSTATE value of '40001'), because it will be very hard to @@ -698,6 +699,26 @@ ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transact for some environments. + + While PostgreSQL's Serializable transaction isolation + level only allows concurrent transactions to commit if it can prove there + is a serial order of execution that would produce the same effect, it + doesn't always prevent errors from being raised that would not occur in + true serial execution. In particular, it is possible to see unique + constraint violations caused by conflicts with overlapping Serializable + transactions even after explicitly checking that the key isn't present + before attempting to insert it. This can be avoided by making sure + that all Serializable transactions that insert potentially + conflicting keys explicitly check if they can do so first. For example, + imagine an application that asks the user for a new key and then checks + that it doesn't exist already by trying to select it first, or generates + a new key by selecting the maximum existing key and adding one. If some + Serializable transactions insert new keys directly without following this + protocol, unique constraints violations might be reported even in cases + where they could not occur in a serial execution of the concurrent + transactions. + + For optimal performance when relying on Serializable transactions for concurrency control, these issues should be considered: -- cgit v1.2.3