Question

Is it appropriate for a server to return 503 ("Service Unavailable") when the requested operation resulted in a database deadlock?

Here is my reasoning:

Seeing as:

  • It's easier to ask clients to repeat the operation.
  • They need to be able to handle 503 Service Unavailable anyway.
  • Database deadlocks are rather rare.

I'm leaning towards this solution. What do you think?

UPDATE: I think returning 503 ("Service Unavailable") is still acceptable if you wish it, but I no longer think it is technically required. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/17960047/14731.

Was it helpful?

Solution 3

I think it's fine so long as the entire transaction is rolled back or if the request is idempotent.

OTHER TIPS

I think semantically 409 Conflict is a better alternative - basically if you have a deadlock there's contention for some resource, and so the operation could not be completed.

Now depending on the reason for the deadlock, the request may not succeed if submitted a second time, but that's true for anything.

For a 503, as a client I'd implement some sort of back-away/circuit breaker operation as the system is rate limited, whereas 409 relates to the specific request.

Just got here with the same question and no clear answer on the issue.

  • a 503 is acceptable but might not be correctly interpreted
  • a 409 is also OK but in my case was not OK (since multiple resources could end up returning a this error for the same URL)

In my case I ended up returning a 307 redirect on the same URL.

Clients will automatically "retry" and the second call works because the resource is only raising a deadlock during its initial creation.

Be warned that might end up in an infinite loop

Licensed under: CC-BY-SA with attribution
Not affiliated with StackOverflow
scroll top