| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nico Heller <nico(dot)heller(at)posteo(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock |
| Date: | 2026-02-11 21:17:54 |
| Message-ID: | 14506.1770844674@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Nico Heller <nico(dot)heller(at)posteo(dot)de> writes:
> We use the following bulk query as we sometimes need acquire multiple
> locks at the same time and want to avoid round-trips to the database:
> |WITH keys(key) AS (SELECT unnest(:keysToLock)) SELECT
> pg_advisory_xact_lock(hashtextextended(key, 0)) FROM keys|
> :keysToLock is a text[] parameter which is pre-sorted in our
> application. This pre-sorting is done to prevent dead locks when two
> concurrent transactions try acquire the same advisory locks (e.g.
> [a,b,c] [b,a,c] can easily deadlock).
> We thought this would be enough, but we occasionally still run into
> deadlocks.
Have you eliminated the possibility that you're getting hash
collisions? With or without that CTE, I can't see a reason for
PG to change the order in which the unnest() results are processed,
so I think you are barking up the wrong tree about where the
problem is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nico Heller | 2026-02-11 21:51:40 | Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock |
| Previous Message | Nico Heller | 2026-02-11 18:44:07 | Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock |