<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The request_token Pattern</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/</link>
	<description>Practical techniques for raising a well-adjusted database</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:33:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seun Osewa</title>
		<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/comment-page-1/#comment-361</link>
		<dc:creator>Seun Osewa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/#comment-361</guid>
		<description>I agree.  I think I &#039;get&#039; the pattern now.  Thanks for sharing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  I think I &#8216;get&#8217; the pattern now.  Thanks for sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vdibart</title>
		<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/comment-page-1/#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>vdibart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/#comment-360</guid>
		<description>Since I&#039;m not aware of any feature on any DBMS that supports exclusive read locks, I&#039;ll assume you mean some kind of write lock.  Oracle supports this with the FOR UPDATE clause, for instance.  

There are a couple of reasons you want to avoid this.  For one, there&#039;s no way to know if a row is locked for update.  So you could have 2 consumers read some data, request the update lock, do a lot of work, then line up behind each other to update those rows with the same exact data.  This duplication of effort will get worse as the system scales.  In fact, this doesn&#039;t ensure that there will only be one consumer, which will disqualify it as a solution in many instances.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since I&#8217;m not aware of any feature on any DBMS that supports exclusive read locks, I&#8217;ll assume you mean some kind of write lock.  Oracle supports this with the FOR UPDATE clause, for instance.  </p>
<p>There are a couple of reasons you want to avoid this.  For one, there&#8217;s no way to know if a row is locked for update.  So you could have 2 consumers read some data, request the update lock, do a lot of work, then line up behind each other to update those rows with the same exact data.  This duplication of effort will get worse as the system scales.  In fact, this doesn&#8217;t ensure that there will only be one consumer, which will disqualify it as a solution in many instances.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seun Osewa</title>
		<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/comment-page-1/#comment-359</link>
		<dc:creator>Seun Osewa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2008/03/28/the-request_token-pattern/#comment-359</guid>
		<description>Why can&#039;t the consumer just select the last-n-rows with an exclusive lock, which is dropped after the emails have been sent?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why can&#8217;t the consumer just select the last-n-rows with an exclusive lock, which is dropped after the emails have been sent?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.290 seconds -->

