Introduction In this article, we are going to see how we can implement a database job queue using SKIP LOCKED. I decided to write this article while answering this Stack Overflow question asked by Rafael Winterhalter. Since SKIP LOCKED is a lesser-known SQL feature, it’s a good opportunity to show you how to use it and why you should employ it, especially when implementing a job queue task.
Introduction Relational database systems employ various Concurrency Control mechanisms to provide transactions with ACID property guarantees. While isolation levels are one way of choosing a given Concurrency Control mechanism, you can also use explicit locking whenever you want a finer-grained control to prevent data integrity issues. As previously explained, there are two types of explicit locking mechanisms: pessimistic (physical) and optimistic (logical). In this post, I’m going to explain how explicit pessimistic locking interacts with non-query DML statements (e.g. insert, update, and delete).
Introduction Having introduced Hibernate explicit locking support, as well as Cascade Types, it’s time to analyze the CascadeType.LOCK behavior. A Hibernate lock request triggers an internal LockEvent. The associated DefaultLockEventListener may cascade the lock request to the locking entity children. Since CascadeType.ALL includes CascadeType.LOCK too, it’s worth understanding when a lock request propagates from a Parent to a Child entity.
Introduction Java Persistence API comes with a thorough concurrency control mechanism, supporting both implicit and explicit locking. The implicit locking mechanism is straightforward and it relies on: Optimistic locking: Entity state changes can trigger a version incrementation Row-level locking: Based on the current running transaction isolation level, the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements may acquire exclusive row locks While implicit locking is suitable for many scenarios, an explicit locking mechanism can leverage a finer-grained concurrency control. In my previous posts, I covered the explicit optimistic lock modes: OPTIMISTIC OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT PESSIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT In this post, I am… Read More
Introduction In my previous post, I introduced the OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT Lock Mode and we applied it for propagating a child entity version change to a locked parent entity. In this post, I am going to reveal the PESSIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT Lock Mode and compare it with its optimistic counterpart.
Introduction In this article we are going to see what is the best way to use the OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT LockModeType with JPA and Hibernate. With LockModeType.OPTIMISTIC, the locked entity version is checked towards the end of the current running transaction, to make sure we don’t use a stale entity state. Because of the application-level validation nature, this strategy is susceptible to race-conditions, therefore requiring an additional pessimistic lock . The LockModeType.OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT not only it checks the expected locked entity version, but it also increments it. Both the check and the update happen in… Read More
Recap In my previous post, I explained the benefits of using explicit optimistic locking. As we then discovered, there’s a very short time window in which a concurrent transaction can still commit a Product price change right before our current transaction gets committed. This issue can be depicted as follows: Alice fetches a Product She then decides to order it The Product optimistic lock is acquired The Order is inserted in the current transaction database session The Product version is checked by the Hibernate explicit optimistic locking routine The price engine manages… Read More
Explicit optimistic locking In my previous post, I introduced the basic concepts of Java Persistence locking. The implicit locking mechanism prevents lost updates and it’s suitable for entities that we can actively modify. While implicit optimistic locking is a widespread technique, few happen to understand the inner workings of explicit optimistic lock mode. Explicit optimistic locking may prevent data integrity anomalies when the locked entities are always modified by some external mechanism.
Implicit locking In concurrency theory, locking is used for protecting mutable shared data against hazardous data integrity anomalies. Because lock management is a very complex problem, most applications rely on their data provider implicit locking techniques. Delegating the whole locking responsibility to the database system can both simplify application development and prevent concurrency issues, such as deadlocking. Deadlocks can still occur, but the database can detect and take safety measures (arbitrarily releasing one of the two competing locks).