Suppressing duplicate request processing prevents some forms of data corruption, such as data duplication and lost data. Achieving suppression together with client retries effectively establishes exactly-once request processing semantics in the system.1 In this article, I present an imaginary web service built on the microservice style design, inspect that and its clients together as a system, define the duplicate request processing problem, and the general solution to it. Finally, I’ll show one possible way to implement the solution.
The microservices involved use synchronous requests to pull and push data so that any part of the overall state is managed centrally in one place (the conventional approach to microservices communicating with the REST/RPC/GraphQL protocols).
Web service as a system
The imaginary web service manages education related entities: students, employees, facilities, and so on.2 Typical management operations are creating, reading, updating, and deleting entities. Here, we focus on employees, their employment contracts, and related information. Collectively, we’ll call those as “staff” entities and dedicate an application named “Staff service” for processing them. There’s also an identity provider (IdP) service that is used to authenticate both students and employees. Because the IdP is provided as an external service, we have another application, called “Users service”, that maps our user identifiers to the IdP’s user identifiers. Finally, an API gateway node serves as the reverse HTTP proxy for all inbound traffic to APIs.
Here’s a diagram of the web service from the viewpoint of the Staff API:
Because we need to allow employees to login to the service, the Staff service needs to associate a user entity for an employee. This happens by calling the API of the Users service, which hides the complexity of the IdP’s User management API.
Looking at the diagram, we can identify the following components and group them:
The servers behind the public APIs: the API gateway, the IdP service, microservices, and databases.
The clients accessing the public APIs: browsers running webapps and integration clients that synchronize education related entities between this system and another.
Network components: the internet where the clients connect from, the private network of the web service, and virtual networks within the hosts that run microservices inside containers.
The operations of the client-server APIs the microservers expose both internally and externally can be grouped into:
Queries, which are for reading data. A query request does not inflict any externally visible change to state of the server. Examples are the HTTP GET and HEAD methods and the query operations of GraphQL.
Mutation, which are for writing data and triggering effects. A mutation request causes externally visible change to the state of the server. Examples are the HTTP POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE methods and the mutation operations of GraphQL.
Considering some of the typical technologies we use building web services like this, we’ll likely use TCP as the connection-oriented protocol for transferring data between hosts. When two hosts have agreed to establish a TCP session, the protocol protects against packet duplication with sequence numbers and acknowledgements, and data integrity with checksums on IP packets. But a TCP session protects data transfer only between two hosts. For instance, creating a new employee involves adding a new user entity to the IdP service. When looking at the communication path of that API operation, there will be four separate TCP sessions (the numbers in red circles in the previous diagram):
Between the browser and the API gateway: call the public Staff API to create an employee
Between the API gateway and the Staff service: forward the call to the microservice
Between the Staff service and the Users service: call the Users API to create a new user entity to associate with the employee
Between the Users service and the IdP service: call the User management API to create the user entity to the IdP in order to allow the employee to login, and provide user identifier mapping between systems
Another technology in general use is database transactions, especially for SQL databases which usually come with the ACID properties. A connection from the application server to the database sits on top of TCP usually, and the database server guarantees that if the transaction commits successfully, the app’s modifications to the data leave the database in a consistent state. It’s another safeguard against data corruption, but again between two components only. The creation of a new employee in our web service involves two SQL transactions (the letters in gray circles in the diagram above):
Staff service: add a row for the new employee
Users service: add a row for the new user
Turns out that any technology protecting only parts of the whole communications path is not sufficient in protecting the whole path. Let’s look at some possible problems.
Examples of problems caused by not protecting the whole communications path
Broken data integrity: Even though a TCP session uses checksums to ensure two hosts transfer data unchanged over the communications channel, it does not guard the application server from reading data received or writing data to be sent via malfunctioning hardware memory. Data corruption can occur.
Broken data confidentiality: A client that serves to integrate an external and our imaginary web service sends the login password of the employee along with the data in the request to create the employee to the Staff API. TLS does protect the communication channel between any two hosts with encryption, but it does not prevent the application server from reading the password in clear text. Any process in the server can read the password, actually.
Broken duplicate request processing suppression: A client requesting to create a new employee using the Staff API encounters either a timeout or receives a timeout related error response. What happens if the client attempts to send the request again? From the client’s perspective, any of the following might have happened to the original request:
The API gateway received the request, but the gateway crashed and never sent the response to the client. The gateway might or might not have forwarded the request to the Staff service before crashing.
The API gateway received the request, but the Staff service is down, not accepting connections. The timeout for the expectation to receive data in the client is lower than in the API gateway for the overall connection attempts to the Staff service, and so the client closes this request attempt.
The Staff service received the request and used an SQL transaction to encompass sending its own request to the Users API for creating the associated user entity. The Staff service received the success response from the Users service, updated the employee row, and committed the SQL transaction. But the Staff service crashed just before responding back to the API gateway. Eventually, the gateway times out the connection to the Staff service and sends a 504 Gateway Timeout error response to the client.
Like previously, but just after opening the encompassing SQL transaction, the Staff service enters stop-the-world garbage collection phase, which effectively pauses the whole service. This makes the API gateway respond with 504 Gateway Timeout to the client. After the garbage collection phase is over, the service continues processing like nothing would have happened.
Like cases 2, 3, or 4, but it was the Users service that failed.
All the five situations above are different forms of timeouts. In cases 3 and 4, the request was processed completely, but the client does not get to know about it. If the client retries the original request, there could be 0, 1, or 2 employees in the system. Here we presume, for the sake of general argument, that the employee data the client sends does not contain data that has uniqueness constraints (the username attribute might be such, for example). It’s clear that TCP’s data correctness mechanisms alone cannot guarantee that a request traversed over many hops would be processed only once.
In case 5, the system was left in an illegal state: there’s a user entity in the IdP and a corresponding identifier mapping in the Users service, but no associated employee entity in the Staff service. This demonstrates that database transactions alone cannot guarantee that the overall system was left in correct state.
Both TCP and database transactions helped to ensure data correctness between two components, but they didn’t guarantee that the overall system was left in correct state.
Even though I’m focusing on the duplicate request processing suppression problem in this article, the general solution to all of them is the same.
The end-to-end argument
The end-to-end argument is a design principle that guides where to locate the implementation of a function for the benefit of a distributed system. The function in question can be duplicate message suppression, data integrity, or data confidentiality, for example. Saltzer, Reed, and Clark articulated the argument in 1981, and it goes as follows:
The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of the communication system. Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible. (Sometimes an incomplete version of the function provided by the communication system may be useful as a performance enhancement.)
Put other way, correct implementation of the function requires that the client and the server at the ends of the communication path work together in achieving the function.
Going back to the earlier example problems, a way to guarantee data integrity is to make the client to compute a hash over the request’s payload data and to include the hash in the request. The application servers, upon receiving the request, compute the hash and compare it to the expected one in the request. If the computed hash equals the expected hash, the server may process the request.
Data confidentiality can be achieved by using end-to-end encryption.
There’s no established way to suppress duplicate request processing. In the Designing Data-Intensive Applications book, Martin Kleppmann describes one approach. The system must be designed so that it holds up exactly-once semantics for processing requests, and an effective way to achieve this is to make operations idempotent.3
Considering our earlier grouping of the operations of client-server APIs into queries and mutations, we can ensure that queries are idempotent by making sure they never affect state so that possible change in state is visible to the client (for instance, request logging would be permitted). Usually this is trivial to achieve with read database queries if returning the data based on the current database state is enough. This does forgo the ability for the client to request data about the state in earlier moments, however; solving that would require storing versioned data snapshots in the database.
For mutations, Kleppmann proposes to include an operation identifier in the request originating from the client. Upon receiving the request, the server can query its database to see if an operation with this identifier has been processed already. The server processes the request only if there’s no existing row having the identifier. When processing is about to finish, the server adds a row containing the identifier indicating that the request has been completed. The operation identifier can either be generated or derived from the input data, whichever is more convenient for the business logic.
Applying Kleppmann’s approach to suppress duplicate request processing, in the context of the imaginary web service presented earlier, is the last part of this article.
Applying duplicate request suppression
Let’s establish API design principles to support idempotency. I’ve chosen to use GraphQL as the application-level protocol here, but the principles are the same regardless of using another protocol, such as REST or RPC.
GraphQL query operations return the data based on the current state of the server. It’s expected that a query with certain input requested over time may return different data as output, reflecting changes in the current state of the service by mutations.
All GraphQL mutation operations must include operation identifier as input, in a parameter called
transactionId. Two requests with the same
transactionIdvalue indicate that the requests are duplicates. The client must generate the identifier as a random UUIDv4 value.
The server must apply the operation only once for a particular
transactionIdvalue, the first time the server receives a request with a
transactionIdit hasn’t processed yet.
The response to a GraphQL mutation operation with a particular
transactionIdvalue must always produce the same logical output. If the server processed the mutation successfully, the response must signal success for all requests having the same
transactionIdvalue. Similarly, if the server completed processing with a failure, all the responses to the same
transactionIdmust signal that failure. In particular, a success response may contain output reflecting the current state of the data, but that output might be different when the client requests the same mutation again (another mutation may have changed the data).
transactionIdvalue must be passed as-is to dependent services.
The principles apply to both public and internal APIs alike.
I’ll go through the principles one-by-one, except for the first, which should be self-sufficient.
The 2nd principle enables distinguishing between two requests and to tell whether they are for the same purpose, even if the input payload would be otherwise be the same. This allows creating different user entities sharing their name, for instance.
As an example, here’s the GraphQL mutation to create a new employee in the Staff API:
The 3rd principle implements idempotency in the server logic, but it isn’t enough for the client to implement retries for timed out requests. That is covered by the 4th principle: it allows the client retry the request until it gets to see the response.
I think supporting client retries is one of the main selling points of idempotency. It also explains why uniqueness constraints on entity attributes are not enough to support duplicate request suppression. A constraint on an attribute, such as username, does prevent clients from creating duplicate user entities, but client retries are broken. The following sequence diagram shows why:
In the diagram, the client requests creating a new employee with a certain username. The service enforces that the username must be unique. The request propagates via the API gateway to the application service, and the service processes the request with success. But then the API gateway crashes before it forwards the response to the client. Eventually, the retry timeout in the client triggers and the client sends the same request again. This time the client receives the response, but it’s a failure: an employee with the supplied username exists already. This is unexpected from the client’s perspective.
An implementation of the 3rd and 4th principles in the server is an SQL table for storing the outcomes of processed mutations. The database schema could be like the following for PostgreSQL:
Here are some example rows to support further discussion:
|addb372c-046f-43e8-c91f-1df1a30caaa0||CREATE_EMPLOYEE||["549d9715-0949-4a57-b9fb-1c56eb8e5029"]||2021-12-03 11:59:30.085 +0200|
|abdb372c-026f-43e8-c91f-2df1b30d8aa1||UPDATE_EMPLOYEE||["549d9715-0949-4a57-b9fb-1c56eb8e5029"]||2021-12-03 12:00:14.290 +0200|
|abdb372c-026f-43e8-c91f-2df1b30d8aa2||UPDATE_EMPLOYEE||["549d9715-0949-4a57-b9fb-1c56eb8e5029"]||invalid email||2021-12-03 12:03:43.110 +0200|
|11d36de7-0e36-475a-ae01-baa634010aa3||DELETE_EMPLOYEE||["549d9715-0949-4a57-b9fb-1c56eb8e5029"]||2021-12-03 12:18:11.507 +0200|
|addb372c-046f-43e8-c91f-1df1a30caaa4||CREATE_EMPLOYEE||duplicate employee username||2021-12-03 13:52:52.067 +0200|
id column stores the
transactionId of a processed mutation
target columns together enable storing
different kind of completed mutations in this single table; the
operation signifies the type of the mutation operation performed, and
target column stores the primary key of the target entity as a
JSON array. For the employee entity, the primary key is just a single
UUID value, but for another entity type, such as school position, the
primary key might be the pair of employment id and school id. We can
store any primary key tuple, regardless of their component data types,
by encoding them as JSON arrays.
null value in the
error_msg column tells that the operation was a
success. A string value present means that the operation in question
failed. For example, the third operation (the
a2) completed with a failure to update a particular employee
entity, because email validation failed. The
error_msg column makes it
possible to resend the same error back to the client if the client
retries the operation with the same
transactionId value. An
error_msg value can exist without an entity target id as well: the
last operation (the
transactionId ending with
a4) was a failure to
create a new employee. We may publish the identifier of a new entity
only after succeeding in entity creation.
In general terms, the Staff service utilizes the
transaction table as
Upon receiving a new mutation request, the service opens a database transaction.
transactiontable contains a row with the same
transactionIdvalue as in the request, the service knows that the request has been processed already, and now it only rebuilds the response for the original processing outcome back to the client. The response is either a success or failure, depending on if the
error_msgcolumn is populated or not:
error_msgis present, the service builds a failure response with a description why the mutation failed.
error_msgis not present, the service builds a success response. The response might include data about the entity after the mutation is completed. If so, the service includes data about the current state of the entity. Because a later mutation might have changed the entity after reconstructing the response for an older mutation, we settle for showing the current data available (which might be nothing if the entity is already deleted). This is what I meant earlier by including the same logical output in the 4th API design principle.
transactiontable didn’t contain a row with this
transactionIdvalue, the service knows that now is the first and only time to process the request. The service must execute any calls to remote services (doesn’t matter who owns them) within the context of the open database transaction and expect errors. But rollbacking the whole database transaction upon remote call error is not the right way do it either: the service must still be able to append a new row to the
transactiontable in the end of the database transaction.
This is where the
ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINTSQL command is very useful. Mark a savepoint within the transaction just before the point of doing anything that you expect to raise an error. It an error does happen, handle it gracefully, rollback to the savepoint, and remember the error for the next step.
Now the service has completed processing the mutation either with success or failure. The service appends a new row to the
The service commits the database transaction and responds to the client.
The 5th API design principle concerns the ability to track the
propagation of change across services. If the Users service, coming
after the Staff service in the communication path of processing clients’
mutation requests, has completed a request with a certain
transactionId, but the Staff service isn’t, we know that the Staff
service is malfunctioning.
Continuing the earlier example of creating a new employee in the Staff
createEmployee mutation), the Staff service might send a
GraphQL mutation like this to the Users service in order to create a
user entity to associate with the employee:
This would be a call to a remote service in the 3rd step of the usage
description of the
transaction table we just went through. The service
making remote calls should utilize retries for timed out connection
Now I can justify my choice of naming for the
I think duplicate request processing suppression and database
transactions share some of their goals. Especially, both aim to protect
against data corruption by guaranteeing that processing takes effect at
most once. But duplicate request suppression is not a form of
distributed transactions either. For example, it’s possible that the
Staff service might crash while processing the
mutation, just after the User service has completed processing the
createUser mutation received from the Staff service. In that
situation, the Users service will have a row in its
indicating completed request processing, but the same table in the Staff
service won’t contain a corresponding row for the
mutation. The system will be left in an inconsistent state unless the
client retries the request until receiving a response.4
Note that because the
transactionId parameter is user input, its value
must be treated as unsafe and potentially malicious. Clients might
generate values that are not truly random, even though the values might
conform to the UUID format. This is why services must enforce
authorization for clients accessing their data.
Communicating with external services
End-to-end wise, the IdP service is the last service in the communication path of creating a new employee. It’s part of the system, but, being an external service, we cannot enforce our API design principles to it. Is there anything we can do to prevent duplicate request processing?
Uniqueness constrains on entity attributes enforced by the API of the external service do help, even if they don’t behave nicely with request retries. For example, the IdP service in my imaginary web service might enforce unique usernames for user entities. That effectively acts as a duplication suppressor for request retries when attempting to create a new entity. If you route all requests to the external service via your own service acting as a facade, you can anticipate username constraint errors on retries and check if the user was created successfully on an earlier attempt after all. In addition, you should have a mechanism to suppress duplicate request processing in the client-facing side of the facade service, especially if the service stores state about some of the data in the external service (entity identifier mapping, like in the Users service, for instance).
The longer your web service operates and the more requests it handles,
the more important suppressing duplicate request processing
becomes. Faults can and eventually will happen in the components of your
system. Some of those faults will trigger your services receiving
duplicated requests. Idempotent request processing constitutes that
requesting the same operation with the same input many times over
applies the effect in the service only once. The trick is in the
identification of the input data, and I’ve shown one way to implement it
There are many ways to go about this. In considering any approach, I’d inspect it from the viewpoint of the client: how can you ensure that it’s safe for the client at the start of the communications path to retry requests, and that the response, when it finally arrives, has the same content as the response to the first request that was actually processed?
In exactly-once semantics, a system processes a message so that the final effect is the same as if no faults occurred, even if the operation was retried due to some fault. Thinking web services, that theoretically necessitates the client to support infinite number of retries, because the service might be unreachable when the client sent its request. In turn, the server must guarantee at-most-once semantics in processing received requests: the server must detect duplicate requests and process only the first of them either completely or not at all. ↩
An entity is an object that is defined primarily by its identifying attribute (such as UUID). Two different entities might have the same descriptive attributes (such as name). ↩
An operation is idempotent if, given the same input, you apply it many times, and the effect is the same as if you applied it only once. ↩
Request processing can be made more reliable between two services with a message broker: the source service publishes requests as messages to the broker, while the destination service consumes messages and acknowledges consumed messages after completing processing them. This is possible with Apache Kafka, for example. ↩