My idea is to implement a basic «vector clock», where a timestamps are clock-based, always go forward and are guaranteed to be unique.
For example, in a simple table:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS timestamps (
last_modified TIMESTAMP UNIQUE
);
I use a trigger to set the timestamp value before insertion. It basically just goes into the future when two inserts arrive at the same time:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bump_timestamp()
RETURNS trigger AS $$
DECLARE
previous TIMESTAMP;
current TIMESTAMP;
BEGIN
previous := NULL;
SELECT last_modified INTO previous
FROM timestamps
ORDER BY last_modified DESC LIMIT 1;
current := clock_timestamp();
IF previous IS NOT NULL AND previous >= current THEN
current := previous + INTERVAL '1 milliseconds';
END IF;
NEW.last_modified := current;
RETURN NEW;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
DROP TRIGGER IF EXISTS tgr_timestamps_last_modified ON timestamps;
CREATE TRIGGER tgr_timestamps_last_modified
BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE ON timestamps
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE bump_timestamp();
I then run a massive amount of insertions in two separate clients:
DO
$$
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP
INSERT INTO timestamps DEFAULT VALUES;
END LOOP;
END;
$$;
As expected, I get collisions:
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "timestamps_last_modified_key"
État SQL :23505
Détail :Key (last_modified)=(2016-01-15 18:35:22.550367) already exists.
Contexte : SQL statement "INSERT INTO timestamps DEFAULT VALUES"
PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 4 at SQL statement
@rach suggested to mix current_clock()
with a SEQUENCE
object, but it would probably imply getting rid of the TIMESTAMP
type. Even though I can't really figure out how it'd solve the isolation problem...
Is there a common pattern to avoid this?
Thank you for your insights :)
If you have only one Postgres server as you said, I think that using timestamp + sequence can solve the problem because sequence are non transactional and respect the insert order. If you have db shard then it will be much more complex but maybe the distributed sequence of 2ndquadrant in BDR could help but I don't think that ordinality will be respected. I added some code below if you have setup to test it.
Let me know if that works. I'm not a DBA so maybe it will be good to ask on dba.stackexchange.com too about the potential side effect.