Django ORM and locking table - django

Question

My problem is as follows:
I have a car dealer A, and a db table named sold_cars. When a car is being sold I create entry in this table.
Table has an integer column named order_no. It should be unique within cars sold by dealer.
So if dealer A sold cars a, b and c, then this column should be 1, 2, 3. I have to use this column, and not a primary key because I don't want to have any holes in my numeration - dealer A and B (which might be added later) should have order numbers 1, 2, 3, and not A: 1, 3, 5, and B: 2, 4, 6. So... I select last greatest order_no for given dealer, increment it by 1 and save.
Problem is that two people bought car from dealer A in the same millisecond and both orders got the same order_no. Any advice? I was thinking of closing this process in a transaction block, and locking this table until the transaction is complete, but can't find any info on how to to that.

Answer 1

I know this question is a bit older, but I just had the same issue and wanted to share my learnings.
I wasn't quite satisfied with st0nes answer, since (at least for postgres) a LOCK TABLE statement can only be issued within a transaction. And although in Django usually almost everything happens within a transaction, this LockingManager does not make sure, that you actually are within a transaction, at least to my understanding. Also I didn't want to completely change the Models Manager just to be able to lock it at one spot and therefore I was more looking for something that works kinda like the with transaction.atomic():, but also locks a given Model.
So I came up with this:
from django.conf import settings
from django.db import DEFAULT_DB_ALIAS
from django.db.transaction import Atomic, get_connection
class LockedAtomicTransaction(Atomic):
"""
Does a atomic transaction, but also locks the entire table for any transactions, for the duration of this
transaction. Although this is the only way to avoid concurrency issues in certain situations, it should be used with
caution, since it has impacts on performance, for obvious reasons...
"""
def __init__(self, model, using=None, savepoint=None):
if using is None:
using = DEFAULT_DB_ALIAS
super().__init__(using, savepoint)
self.model = model
def __enter__(self):
super(LockedAtomicTransaction, self).__enter__()
# Make sure not to lock, when sqlite is used, or you'll run into problems while running tests!!!
if settings.DATABASES[self.using]['ENGINE'] != 'django.db.backends.sqlite3':
cursor = None
try:
cursor = get_connection(self.using).cursor()
cursor.execute(
'LOCK TABLE {db_table_name}'.format(db_table_name=self.model._meta.db_table)
)
finally:
if cursor and not cursor.closed:
cursor.close()
So if I now want to lock the model ModelToLock, this can be used like this:
with LockedAtomicTransaction(ModelToLock):
# do whatever you want to do
ModelToLock.objects.create()
EDIT: Note that I have only tested this using postgres. But to my understanding, it should also work on mysql just like that.

Answer 2

from contextlib import contextmanager
from django.db import transaction
from django.db.transaction import get_connection
#contextmanager
def lock_table(model):
with transaction.atomic():
cursor = get_connection().cursor()
cursor.execute(f'LOCK TABLE {model._meta.db_table}')
try:
yield
finally:
cursor.close()
This is very similar to #jdepoix solution, but a bit more concise.
You can use it like this:
with lock_table(MyModel):
MyModel.do_something()
Note that this only works with PostgreSQL and uses python 3.6's f-strings a.k.a. literal string interpolation.

Answer 3

I would recommend using the F() expression instead of locking the entire table. If your app is being heavily used, locking the table will have significant performance impact.
The exact scenario you described is mentioned in Django documentation here. Based on your scenario, here's the code you can use:
from django.db.models import F
# Populate sold_cars as you normally do..
# Before saving, use the "F" expression
sold_cars.order_num =F('order_num') + 1
sold_cars.save()
# You must do this before referring to order_num:
sold_cars.refresh_from_db()
# Now you have the database-assigned order number in sold_cars.order_num
Note that if you set order_num during an update operation, use the following instead:
sold_cars.update(order_num=F('order_num')+1)
sold_cars.refresh_from_db()
Since database is in charge of updating the field, there won't be any race conditions or duplicated order_num values. Plus, this approach is much faster than one with locked tables.

Answer 4

I think this code snippet meets your need, assuming you are using MySQL. If not, you may need to tweak the syntax a little, but the idea should still work.
Source: Locking tables
class LockingManager(models.Manager):
""" Add lock/unlock functionality to manager.
Example::
class Job(models.Model):
manager = LockingManager()
counter = models.IntegerField(null=True, default=0)
#staticmethod
def do_atomic_update(job_id)
''' Updates job integer, keeping it below 5 '''
try:
# Ensure only one HTTP request can do this update at once.
Job.objects.lock()
job = Job.object.get(id=job_id)
# If we don't lock the tables two simultanous
# requests might both increase the counter
# going over 5
if job.counter < 5:
job.counter += 1
job.save()
finally:
Job.objects.unlock()
"""
def lock(self):
""" Lock table.
Locks the object model table so that atomic update is possible.
Simulatenous database access request pend until the lock is unlock()'ed.
Note: If you need to lock multiple tables, you need to do lock them
all in one SQL clause and this function is not enough. To avoid
dead lock, all tables must be locked in the same order.
See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/lock-tables.html
"""
cursor = connection.cursor()
table = self.model._meta.db_table
logger.debug("Locking table %s" % table)
cursor.execute("LOCK TABLES %s WRITE" % table)
row = cursor.fetchone()
return row
def unlock(self):
""" Unlock the table. """
cursor = connection.cursor()
table = self.model._meta.db_table
cursor.execute("UNLOCK TABLES")
row = cursor.fetchone()
return row

Answer 5

I had the same problem. The F() solution solves a different problem. It doesn't get the max(order_no) for all sold_cars rows for a specific car dealer, but rather provides a way to update the value of order_no based on the value that already set in the field for a particular row.
Locking entire table is an overkill here, it's sufficient to lock only specific dealer's rows.
Below is the solution I ended up with. The code assumes sold_cars table references dealers table using sold_cars.dealer field. Imports, logging and error handling omitted for clarity:
DEFAULT_ORDER_NO = 0
def save_sold_car(sold_car, dealer):
# update sold_car instance as you please
with transaction.atomic():
# to successfully use locks the processes must query for row ranges that
# intersect. If no common rows are present, no locks will be set.
# We save the sold_car entry without an order_no to create at least one row
# that can be locked. If order_no assignment fails later at some point,
# the transaction will be rolled back and the 'incomplete' sold_car entry
# will be removed
sold_car.save()
# each process adds its own sold_car entry. Concurrently getting sold_cars
# by their dealer may result in row ranges which don't intersect.
# For example process A saves sold_car 'a1' the same moment process B saves
# its 'b1' sold_car. Then both these processes get sold_cars for the same
# dealer. Process A gets single 'a1' row, while process B gets
# single 'b1' row.
# Since all the sold_cars here belong to the same dealer, adding the
# related dealer's row to each range with 'select_related' will ensure
# having at least one common row to acquire the lock on.
dealer_sold_cars = (SoldCar.objects.select_related('dealer')
.select_for_update()
.filter(dealer=dealer))
# django queries are lazy, make sure to explicitly evaluate them
# to acquire the locks
len(dealer_sold_cars)
max_order_no = (dealer_sold_cars.aggregate(Max('order_no'))
.get('order_no__max') or DEFAULT_ORDER_NO)
sold_car.order_no = max_order_no + 1
sold_car.save()