[stickfigure]

Retries will only receive 409 if the original request was successful. If the original request failed, the server performs the operation as normal on the second request. It doesn't replay failures.

The whole point of the idempotence mechanism is so you can make a reliable distributed system. If the first try fails, the client doesn't know if it succeeded or not, so the client should try again later ("at-least-once"). The idempotence mechanism just ensures that we don't get duplicates in the case that the first try actually succeeded.

If you replayed failures there wouldn't be any point to the idempotency key.

[pdonis]

What if the original request is still being processed when the retry comes in? That doesn't fall into either of your categories: the request isn't successful, but it hasn't failed either.

[scott_w]

That’s because everyone here thinking about payments completely incorrectly. They’re not atomic and your server shouldn’t pretend they are.

You need to store the payment state at each relevant step and process it asynchronously. If requests time out, you check the status of it using the key you store (with the processor) to see if it was even received.

It’s not perfect, some processors will 500 while processing the payment (Braintree), so you still need reconciliation on the backend.

[fud101]

I'm not as smart as you folks but doesn't durable execution being a part of the solution help a lot in this respect?

[kelnos]

You still return 409, with error detail in the response body, because it is still true that the client sent multiple requests with the same idempotency key, regardless of the progress of the original request.

Regardless, I think your assumption about how the request/response cycle should be working is wrong. For this kind of API and transaction, the server should be returning a response immediately: 202 Accepted. The only thing the API server should be doing before returning is creating a row in a DB (with a "state" field with an initial value of "pending"), and pushing some work on a queue.

The server should not be sitting there with the HTTP request open, trying to complete the transaction, and only returning a response to the client when the transaction is finished or has encountered an error.

The client will have to learn about the progress of the state of the transaction outside of this initial request. There are many options here: polling, webhooks, a message queue like kinesis or kafka, etc.

[GRiMe2D]

Ah you see, you just essentially moved unique constraint to a client. It is no different generating an ID on client side and making a request. It is not idempotency.

Idempotency-Key should not replay the response (it depends, actually). But also it should not error 409. You need to be content aware before adding Idemmpotency Key header handling.

What will happen when the request is received and handled but during writing response body TCP connection dropped unexpectedly. And after second or two a connection reestablished. How two sides agree that previous request accepted and everything good to go? That's what Idempotency-Key header does.

[pdonis]

By "request" I didn't necessarily mean the HTTP request sent by the client, and I don't think the post I was responding to did either. But I agree my use of terminology was ambiguous. Let me restate more clearly, and in a way that shows the issue under your request/response process:

An HTTP request comes in with a certain idempotency key. The server returns 202, as you say, and begins to process the database transaction.

While the server is still procesing the database transaction, a second HTTP request comes in with the same idempotency key. What response does this second HTTP request get? The original transaction that the first HTTP request triggered hasn't succeeded and hasn't failed, so it doesn't fall into either of the categories in the post I responded to.

Your answer is that the second HTTP request gets a 409, which makes sense to me, although others are objecting to it.

[stickfigure]

Best practice is to keep database transactions short. There is no value in returning a "hey this is in progress" error code to a client when transactions are short, and databases don't easily give you this primitive anyway.

You seem very focused on long-running orchestration type systems. You build these on top of basic transactional primitives, but it's a mistake to try to make the whole process a single transaction. You can have a quick, transactional "start process" operation which must be idempotent. Other operations like "check status" need not be so complicated.

You don't necessarily share the idempotency key between the "start process" request and the "check status" request. You could for convenience, but it isn't necessary, and on balance most APIs don't. This is the "client picks ID" vs "server picks ID" design choice.

[pdonis]

> There is no value in returning a "hey this is in progress" error code to a client when transactions are short

Fair enough. So basically your approach is to wait until the first request completes to decide how to respond to the second request that came in with the same idempotency key.

However, that would seem to me to imply that when the second request comes in, you check its idempotency key, realize you've already received a request with that key and you're processing it, and don't do anything else with the second request until the first one is completed. In particular, you don't have the second request trigger the start of another transaction.

But elsewhere in this thread, you've said you would start a second transaction based on the second request, and let your database's transaction mechanism tell you that it's a duplicate when you try to commit it. Why would you do that if you've checked the second request's idempotency key and you know it's a duplicate?

> You seem very focused on long-running orchestration type systems.

I'm not focused on anything except getting what I thought would be a simple answer to a simple question. The above seems to provide that (though it still leaves a question open, as above). That's all I wanted.

> You don't necessarily share the idempotency key between the "start process" request and the "check status" request.

I'm not talking about a "check status" request. The scenario I've been asking about all along is when a second "start process" request comes in with the same idempotency key as a previous "start process" request, while the process is still in progress.

[stickfigure]

While I'd love to take credit for it, this isn't literally "my" approach; this is just the standard way that transaction processing systems on the web work. And it's so standard that you don't even have to write code for it. Databases handle all the isolation and concurrency issues for you.

Part of the problem here is that we're confusing how do you structure the API (replay? 409? something else?) with how we implement the API. The original article (and my original response) focused on API structure. We're wandering into the details of implementation, which is fine, but there are of course many ways to do the implementation. Some simpler than others.

Here's the simplest and most reliable way to implement idempotency for a trivial "create payment" operation, where the client submits an idempotency key. This pattern is incredibly common. Every request looks something like this:

* Start a transaction

* Lookup "does this idempotency key already exist"

* If it doesn't, insert the payment record with the idempotency key

* Commit the transaction

* Return the result. Successful insert is always 200OK. "key already exists" results in either replay of the original result (Stripe model) or an explicit error like 409 (my favored approach, still ubiquitous in ecommerce, and very common in financial APIs that predate Stripe).

Does that help? If you're using your database to handle concurrency, you need every request to start inside the transaction. You can't check the idempotency key outside of the transaction or you can't guarantee once-and-only-once behavior.

[Before someone mentions it, yes you can use a unique constraint instead of an explicit transaction, and this is conceptually identical - the check-for-dup transaction is inside a single INSERT]

[stickfigure]

> You still return 409

No no no no no.

You have multiple clients submitting the same business operation simultaneously. One must succeed, the others must fail. If you're using the 409 approach ("notify client that request is redundant") you must not send a 409 code until the work is complete.

The client must interpret 200 and 409 as success cases. 200 means "it was done" and 409 means "it was already done". Clients looping (say, processing durable queue messages) can stop when they receive these responses.

If the work is not complete, you can't return 409, or clients will think the work is done. You will lose messages.

[ASalazarMX]

What's the best practice here? It's trying to represent as binary a multi-state operation, but the redundant clients should check the response's body to know why it 409'd. If the process is slow, it can't return a 200 immediately, and yet it should return 409 to all other attempts, even if the initial attempt ends up unsuccessful.

[fc417fc802]

> and yet it should return 409 to all other attempts, even if the initial attempt ends up unsuccessful.

No, it shouldn't. The comment you're responding to is taking 200 to mean "success" and 409 to mean "it was done" so if it was not in fact done then you _must not_ return that.

That said, I thought one of the benefits of idempotency was nonblocking APIs so I'm not sure I like that scheme. It seems like 200 should mean "submitted, accepted, incomplete" and 409 should mean "previously completed". The client never knows which request succeeded but they're idempotent so that doesn't matter. You just poll until the 200 becomes a 409.

Of course that would provide zero diagnostics in the case of failure so I think it's not sufficient as described.

[pdonis]

> You have multiple clients submitting the same business operation simultaneously.

It doesn't have to be multiple clients. It could be the same client, not having received a response to its first request and deciding to re-send the request again.

[stickfigure]

That's fine! It doesn't change anything.

[saltcured]

Being charitable, I'd say the poster above is saying that in the web architecture you can (should?) shift more of the burden for idempotence to the client.

But, rather than 409, I'd say that you should be using opportunistic concurrency control if you adopt this perspective. There should be a resource context for the request, so the client can obtain an ETag and send If-None-Match headers, and get a 412 response if things are out of sync. That allows them to retry a failed/lost request and safely prevent a double action.

Under a 412, they have to step back and retry a larger loop where they GET some new state and prepare a new action. Just like in DB transaction programming, where your failed commit means you roll back, clean the slate, and start a whole new interrogation of transaction-protected state leading up to your new mutation request.

[jeremyjh]

The client is already participating in a transaction in a distributed system. There is no way to change the reality of that. Suggestions about masking this only make the composite system unsound and will not improve net service reliability improvement.

That doesn't mean that idempotency keys have to be used. You can certainly hash message content if that is documented behavior. That probably only makes sense when there is already some logical session or transaction identifier that makes dedupe semantics clear.

The system you propose might be sound and might be necessary in some systems, but I can't think of what they might be that wouldn't be better served by the simpler solution that is already widely used for this purpose.

[jmalicki]

Your database should not allow both commits to happen - one should get rolled back.

If it processed 99% of the request and the final bookkeeping failed because of a duplicate, that's still a failed request.

Arguably this should be the primary way you check for idempotent requests - you shouldn't have a separate check for existence, you should have the insert/update fail atomically.

This is the same thing you see on filesystems for TOCTOU security holes - the right way is to atomically access and modify once, and you only know the request was already processed because that fails.

[scott_w]

Not in the payments world. If you’re 99% done but only the bookkeeping failed, then it’s likely that money is changing hands and you need to deal with that fact. Payments are not an atomic infrastructure and you cannot magic that into reality.

[stickfigure]

Payments are multistep but each of the steps needs to be atomic. The "create payment" operation must be transactional and the communication channel between you and the processor must be idempotent so you don't inadvertently create multiple payments.

The fact that payments have a settlement process is not relevant to this discussion.

[scott_w]

> The "create payment" operation must be transactional and the communication channel between you and the processor must be idempotent so you don't inadvertently create multiple payments.

Yes, I agree. You want to generate a token, persist it locally and use that to communicate with the payment gateway, so re-submissions use the same key and either error or return the transaction state.

> The fact that payments have a settlement process is not relevant to this discussion.

I wasn't talking about settlement, I was talking about the processing aspect. What I meant was: once you kickstart the process with the gateway, money is highly likely to change hands as a result. This means a process of:

1. POST /checkout

2. Create token

3. POST to payment gateway with token

4. Wait for gateway to return

5. Persist transaction/error

6. Return success/error

What is needed is to persist and return the token to the caller before contacting the payment gateway, to make a check + retry mechanism possible.

And yes, I've seen code that follows steps 1-6 exactly as I've described and, yes, all the problems you imagine would occur from those steps have occurred at one time or another.

[stickfigure]

This is one possible API but it's not the dominant way payments are exposed by payments providers. Stripe, Amazon, Paypal, et al do this differently. They're fine.

[jmalicki]

And if there is part of the process that isn't idempotent, you want to make that surface area as small as possible, so that only failures at that one discrete step can cause issues.

[stickfigure]

That's usually solved with traditional database transactions.

Even if you have a complex long-running multistep orchestration problem, you can break it down into simpler transactions. Eg you could start with a "lock the resources" txn.

But 99% of these conversations around idempotence are simple POST operations like "create order" that regular old database concurrency management handles just fine.

[pdonis]

> That's usually solved with traditional database transactions.

That doesn't answer my question. What response do you return to the client in the case I described?

[stickfigure]

This is just normal concurrent programming? If two requests come in for the same idempotency key/customer reference id, only one will succeed. Use standard database transaction isolation.

So one will complete with 200, one will complete with 409. It doesn't matter which.

That said, there's something odd about the way you phrased this question. If the original request hasn't gotten a response yet, why is it sending a retry? What you're asking is more general: What happens when two conflicting requests come in? This is something we've been solving with RDBMSes since the 1970s.

[thaumasiotes]

> That said, there's something odd about the way you phrased this question. If the original request hasn't gotten a response yet, why is it sending a retry?

Because it hasn't gotten a response yet. That's got to be far and away the most common reason any request gets retried in any context.

[chii]

So you have to serialize the requests, and have one of them wait for the other to finish to return the 409?

> why is it sending a retry?

may be two clients tries to do it? Or there's a bug with the client in how they do it?

Isn't the point of idempotency meant to enable clients to retry again, without fear that a 2nd request somehow breaking things?

[stickfigure]

By definition we have to serialize something somewhere so we can decide which request is the success and which request is the duplicate. There's nothing special about the case of retries, this is standard concurrent programming 101. Two conflicting requests come in, which one wins?

You absolutely must wait for one request to finish before any other request can return a 409. 409 is a signal to the client that they can stop retrying, the job is done. If some request returns 409 early and the "original" request fails, you will not get further retries and the message will be lost.

Stripe's approach requires serialization as well. Only one request can succeed. If you send multiple conflicting requests in simultaneously, some of those have to block.

The good news is that we have been solving this problem for decades and we have incredibly well refined tools - database transactions and isolation levels - for solving this problem.

[jeremyjh]

> So you have to serialize the requests,

Not necessarily - there are different transaction isolation and conflict resolution methods provided by every database built for this purpose. You just have to ensure that only one request actually commits to the database, and that one sends a success response while the other sends a 409. The database or another lock provider can either help enforce serialization up-front - or the app can use optimistic locks based on data in the request that will only block if there is actually a conflict, and this won't delay the first transaction at all.

Solving these kinds of issues are exactly the purposes of idempotency keys and database transactions and using them in the intended way is really the only sound way to build a distributed system. Making things more complicated to "improve DevX" is just going to make them unsound. That is what Stripe chose to do. Their 24-hour replay idea is fine but why not send 409s after that rather than accept those transactions? If "that will never happen" then the 409s will never happen. It would have cost approximately nothing (if designed that way upfront) and inconvenienced their clients not at all.

[pdonis]

> If the original request hasn't gotten a response yet, why is it sending a retry?

Um, because connections over the Internet aren't 100% always on? Because packets can get lost? Because computers sometimes have to reboot?

You're assuming that the client will always receive whatever response your server finally sends, and that the client will wait indefinitely to receive a response. Neither of those things are true. So the client can be in a state where it sends a retry because it got no response and doesn't know why. And that means a retry request could come in while the first one is still being resolved--because the client had a timeout or it rebooted or something else happened that made it lose the connection state it previously had. That's the case I'm asking about.

[stickfigure]

I'm not assuming anything. Let me try to reframe this for you.

The case of "client sends a retry with the same idempotency key" generalizes to "multiple requests come in for the same idempotency key". These can come in spread out over time (like a traditional loop), or they could come in at once. The solution is the same either way.

The problem of "how do we deal with multiple conflicting requests coming in at once" is something we have been dealing with for decades. We have databases with transactions and isolation levels. If I said in an interview "make an endpoint that inserts a value in a database and returns an error if the value is a duplicate", any competent backend web developer should be able write it without Claude's help. Concurrency is part of our life.

Whether you want to return 409 or replay the success is irrelevant to this question. You must serialize the idempotent operation on the server, because you can have multiple requests coming in simultaneously. If you put the operation in a database transaction with an appropriate isolation level, you are most of the way there.

[Groxx]

You're asking questions that broadly summarize as: "what if we had an idempotency key [which must work concurrently to be useful], but it didn't work concurrently?"

Idempotency keys are themselves the solution you're looking for. If they don't work concurrently, they aren't idempotency keys. Your response in races or duplicates doesn't inherently matter in that sense, pick whatever semantics make sense for your system.

[matsemann]

The lock would normally make the second request wait, aka not return a response, until the first one is done. Then it sees it's a duplicate and returns that. Or it times out and returns an error. Then the client hopefully have some exponential back off strategy, so the third attempt doesn't suffer the same fate.

[MattDaEskimo]

If a transaction is locked then subsequent requests would return a 409, ideally with an error message indicating that it's currently being processed.

[hn_throwaway_99]

To be honest, I liked your original response about returning a 409 - it's not something I'd done before and I like how it keeps things simpler.

But your follow up responses here are making me rethink. Now you have to have all these special cases where the original request is still in process. I think or assertion of "99% are simple POST operations" is bullshit. For the times where idempotency is hard and really matters, often times you're calling a third party API, like a payment processing API.

I would think a better approach would be to always return a 409 on a subsequent request, regardless of whether it passed or failed, and then have a separate standard API that lets you get the result of any request by its idempotency key.

[saltcured]

Idempotence already requires some client thinking if you want to conform to HTTP specs.

I.e. idempotent DELETE with proper protocol behavior requires that one request see the 200 OK or 204 No Content and the other sees 404 Not Found, because the delete has already happened. It would be misleading to say 200 OK to both, because that answer means the resource was there when the request arrived.

Honestly, the whole HTTP resource model has a different conceptual backing for state management than the independently developed "idempotence" concepts in distributed systems. Those non-HTTP concepts came from more message-based rather than resource-based architectural assumptions.

The cleanest mapping in the spirit of HTTP would be that you do multiple round trips. A POST creates a new idempotence context, a bit like "start a transaction". The new URI is the key for coordinating state change and allowing restart/recovery.

As I remember it, the idea of idempotence keys in headers really came from the SOAP RPC mindset. It's kind of funny to see it persisting in some hybrid SOAP + REST mental model.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The cleanest mapping in the spirit of HTTP would be that you do multiple round trips. A POST creates a new idempotence context, a bit like "start a transaction". The new URI is the key for coordinating state change and allowing restart/recovery.

I think that gave me "Enterprise Java Beans PTSD". I.e. an over-engineered solution that adds complexity for both the client and server in the name of some sort of "protocol purity".

People bolted on idempotent semantics onto HTTP because it wasn't provided natively by the protocol, so I don't think it makes sense to go through some hoop-jumping gymnastics for the sake of conforming to a spec that doesn't describe the necessary semantics in the first place.

[saltcured]

FWIW, I'm not particularly fond of HTTP. But there is PTSD in both directions. Doing random things ignoring (or subverting) "protocol purity" often create disastrous effects when they haven't considered how the larger system will behave when you have various middleware bits that are essentially obeying different protocols while superficially claiming to use an interoperable standard.

When I let myself ruminate, it irks me that we all let HTTP become the defacto "internet protocol" just because of firewalls. Because there was a cargo cult idea that HTTP is benign and so one of few ports allowed almost everywhere, we do stupid contortions to squeeze every protocol through an HTTP tunnel.

These short-sighted acts of laziness accumulate into HTTP everywhere. And of course, the firewall is nearly pointless when "everything" is going through that one hole anyway.

[stickfigure]

> special cases where the original request is still in process

This isn't a special case, and it's the same problem if you want to replay the original response on conflict. If the original request isn't complete, what are you going to replay?

[pdonis]

> If the original request isn't complete, what are you going to replay?

Who says you have to replay? If you get a second request with the same idempotency key, and the original request is still in process, why not just send the client a response that says so?

[stickfigure]

It's not a terrible question. It would be complicated to implement and isn't more useful than using the database's consistency model, so nobody does it that way.

Long running transactions create all sorts of problems, so transactions are generally expected to be short. The actual work behind "create payment" or "create order" is generally fairly trivial - more or less insert a row in a table. There's no good reason to make the API complicated... you either "win" at concurrency or you lose, and the difference is generally sub-millisecond. The only meaningful thing you need to communicate to the client is "you're done" (for both the win and lose cases) or "you need to try again" (for the "something unexpected went wrong" case).

Complicated workflows can certainly have multiple steps, with "fetch the current status" calls in between. But somewhere near the beginning of every complicated workflow there will be a call to "create workflow" and it will need to have sort of mechanism which allows clients to call it idempotently. Otherwise you end up with multiple starts.

I've literally received duplicate products in the mail because of this kind of problem. I've also sent multiple products in the mail because services I relied on didn't offer the necessary idempotency mechanisms.

[hn_throwaway_99]

That is my point. When you are doing "normal" idempotency where you do the appropriate locking and keep around a table with ongoing request status and the result that you can return on a subsequent duplicate request, you handle all these cases. But in your "409" version of it, you haven't really saved much complexity on the server because you still need to keep around all that info if you're not just returning a 409 if you get a second request while the first is in progress.

[stickfigure]

I don't understand what you're saying. I can take any cheap rdbms, put a unique constraint on a column, and make my API return 409 for conflict vs 200 on success. There's so little code involved that it's embarrassing to charge money for it.

[turtlebits]

You have a transaction row lock and you tell the subsequent requests to f off. I would go as far as returning a 429.

Devs are too scared to be nice (ie not return errors) to clients when they misbehave.

[whoamii]

You are improvising, and in the process, changing the semantics of a well established design pattern. Do not recommend.

[stickfigure]

Your comment contributes nothing to the discourse. It's FUD.

The pattern I describe was the dominant design pattern for financial transaction processing systems before Stripe. Stripe's API makes life for the clients slightly easier at the expense of making life for servers more complicated, but the two approaches are equivalent in function.

[whoamii]

The topic is about idempotency though, and what you are describing is not idempotency. You are describing something different, and arguing “but it accomplishes a similar thing.” It appears you have come to the same conclusion as the article that building idempotency isn’t trivial.

[stickfigure]

It absolutely is idempotent behavior of the system. The goal is "make an idempotent payment", and this approach ("return an error for duplicates") was standard for financial APIs before Stripe. It still dominates for ecommerce APIs.

It isn't complicated, though I can see how if your entire experience with financial APIs is Stripe, you might not be aware of how simple it is. Because Stripe's approach, while mildly more convenient for clients, is a PITA to implement properly.

[whoamii]

You seem to believe idempotency is a fancy word for avoiding duplicates, which is why we seem to be having different conversations.

[stickfigure]

Idempotence is a fancy word for being able to repeat an operation without changing the outcome.

You seem to think that it's important to make the specific bytes of an http request-response idempotent.

I think that it's important to make a business operation idempotent.

You're missing the forest for the trees.