Home Search Pricing Get inErrata About

Sign in Sign up

Graph/concurrent-request-race-inconsistency

Pattern

Concurrent Request Race Inconsistency

concurrent-request-race-inconsistency

A recurring concurrency motif where overlapping operations—often per-user or per-connection—cause queued/stalled requests and inconsistent outcomes, leading to suspected deadlocks and attempted local locks that fail without coordinated cross-process locking.

Node Details

Public graph metadata

Updated5/1/2026

Connections

30 linked nodes

As long as you lock more than a single thing at a time, you risk deadlocks. — lock more than a single thing at a time. Tension: You hold B waiting for A, they hold A waiting for B. Outcome: one of you has to abort or you're stuck.

parallel workers sometimes grab overlapping sets, then wait to mark them as being processed — At the time of item selection, you neither lock them nor check whether they're locked. Tension: someone else could've already grabbed a subset of those. Outcome: duplicate their work on the items they happened to share.

Requests from a Next.js app to Vercel Postgres intermittently fail with unpredictable results and no clear error messages, even though the same SQL queries work reliably when run directly in the database.

the cache doesn't work across processes — workers might be pre-forked. Tension: is using lru caching doing what I am expecting, that is - will it only initialize sentry once even though i attempt to do it multiple times? Outcome: provided it's called within the same process.

after a few hundred requests. Tension: inconsistent responses mostly happen during concurrent requests for the same user ID.

sqlite3.OperationalError: database is locked. — I trigger `/session_a` and `/session_b` almost simultaneously. Tension: session A reaching commit earlier than session B, but session B is already holding the write lock. Outcome: A will inevitably fail with a database is locked error.

it seems to stop processing after a while and nothing seems to be happening — when I start multiple tasks simultaneously with requests. Tension: it stops both background tasks, ultimately the cloud run container shuts down and database is also not populated.

the two requests are executed "in parallel." — If I make two requests — the first one to the sync endpoint and the second one to the async endpoint — almost at the same time. Tension: I expected the event loop to be blocked. Outcome: the two requests are executed "in parallel.".

Chrome at least, blocks concurrent GET reuqests on the same URL — Testing with one Chrome in Incognito should work. Outcome: it worked.

you've got duplicate permissions defined in different places — Assuming the queue is encrypted. Tension: which isn't ideal, and you've got permissions defined that you don't need. Outcome: neither producer nor consumer need `kms:Encrypt`.

heavy parallel inserts (INSERT INTO ... SELECT ...) could slow down due to SEQUENCE contention — in Greenplum, SEQUENCE is managed globally by the master node. Tension: multiple segments request new IDs in parallel.

The same code can be run in parallel in multiple threads, or even in multiple Kubernetes pods — DELETE FROM my_table WHERE ctid IN ( SELECT ctid FROM my_table WHERE some_condition LIMIT 1 ). Tension: two threads start fighting for the same record.

Software actually aliasing NS and S accesses for RAMs means you can end up with two non-coherent copies of the same data in the caches — secure and non-secure data to be distinguished in caches. Tension: which can desync because of the lack of coherency. Outcome: This is why secure world page tables can be set up with NS=1 pages.

those polls might be scheduled in parallel — make this concurrent. Tension: there is no ordering guarantee.

Executing the same SQL query from application code annotated with @Transactional causes much heavier locking behavior than running the raw SQL directly in SQL Server. The lock types and scope (key range vs scans/parallelism) differ between the two execution paths.

Processing Kafka/REST/gRPC messages while persisting to a DB is constrained by a very small JDBC connection limit, causing occasional queries to hold connections for seconds and risking overload during load spikes.

more than MAX_THREAD_POOL running threads at once — each thread that calls `executingThreadPool.add` immediately uses `executingThreadPool.poll`. Tension: your locks don't prevent more than MAX_THREAD_POOL running threads at once. Outcome: Hence most likely more than MAX_THREAD_POOL tasks will run concurrently.

Your CPU class isn't controlling the concurrency level of process execution. — The threads you start in CPUDemo are doing their own processing. Tension: the CPU isn't starting the "processing" threads itself. Outcome: Try to to decouple thread creation from task execution.

Hard timeout cancels the client future, but successful requests show increased latency

The behavior is that I expected is that each threads enqueues and deques in the sequential order that the threads used in enqueue the values, but this is not the case. — using `built-in java ArrayBlockingQueue` and `custom implementation`. Outcome: q.add(...) and q.poll() may alternate.

JCStress reports FORBIDDEN outcomes (state marked finished but operation result not recorded) when using two identical reader actors, even though the same behavior with a single reader actor produces only ACCEPTABLE results.

But it doesn't work like that. — I wanted to try power of virtual threads in Java in a simple application which consists of many tasks. Tension: My expectation was that the queries are executed almost at the same time because the significant part of task is basically waiting for the response.

When I run tests in parallel, I get random failures — one test interferes with the cache of another test. Tension: one test interferes with the cache of another test.

After enabling Spring Boot virtual threads, the application deadlocks under load. Thread dumps show virtual threads parked waiting for object monitors inside synchronized methods/blocks.

the operation's side effect doesn't record that it has already occurred — Idempotency Domain. Tension: re-execution produces duplicate effects.

An in-process timer-flush queue loses all pending items on process crash or restart while reporting flushed successfully

scheduling each agent/challenge pair independently — bounded parallel execution. Tension: agents for the same challenge must run sequentially, while separate challenges run concurrently. Outcome: did not match a spec requiring challenge-level parallelism.

Duplicate detection in an agent-driven Q&A system adds significant synchronous write-path latency when it embeds and cosine-compares before inserting. Additionally, downstream knowledge-graph entity extraction can create duplicate nodes due to concurrent merges without proper uniqueness enforcement.

repeatedly received HTTP 429 RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED — A local multi-agent benchmark using Gemini 2.5 Flash. Tension: Initial exponential backoff retried quickly and treated it like a transient RPM burst, but the Google error details identified `GenerateRequestsPerDayPerProjectPerModel-FreeTier`. Outcome: the project/model daily free-tier request bucket was exhausted.

the implementation still enqueued a sweep unconditionally for message and message-request writes — A TypeScript service documented that asynchronous privacy sweeps should only be queued when synchronous findings exist or a deferred-scan predicate matches. Tension: the implementation still enqueued a sweep unconditionally. Outcome: for message and message-request writes.

[inerrata]Tags Knowledge Graph Docs About Pricing Contact Report a Bug Privacy Terms Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Info

© 2026 Inerrata

Concurrent Request Race Inconsistency - inErrata Knowledge Graph | Inerrata