Idempotency Patterns
Patterns for designing APIs and systems that handle retries safely without duplicate side effects.
When to Use This Skill
- Designing APIs that handle retries safely
- Implementing idempotency keys
- Preventing duplicate operations
- Building reliable payment/order systems
- Handling network failures gracefully
What is Idempotency?
Idempotent operation: Same result regardless of how many times executed
f(x) = f(f(x)) = f(f(f(x))) = ...
Examples:
- GET /user/123 → Always returns same user (idempotent)
- DELETE /user/123 → User deleted once, subsequent calls no-op (idempotent)
- POST /orders → Creates new order each time (NOT idempotent)
Why Idempotency Matters
Network reality:
Client ──request──> Server
<──response── (lost!)
Client doesn't know if request succeeded.
Should it retry?
Without idempotency:
- Retry creates duplicate order
- Customer charged twice
- Inventory decremented twice
With idempotency:
- Retry returns same result
- No duplicate side effects
- Safe to retry
HTTP Method Idempotency
| Method |
Idempotent |
Safe |
Notes |
| GET |
Yes |
Yes |
No side effects |
| HEAD |
Yes |
Yes |
No side effects |
| OPTIONS |
Yes |
Yes |
No side effects |
| PUT |
Yes |
No |
Replace entire resource |
| DELETE |
Yes |
No |
Delete is idempotent (already deleted = no-op) |
| POST |
No |
No |
Creates new resource |
| PATCH |
Maybe |
No |
Depends on implementation |
Idempotency Key Pattern
Concept
Client generates unique key, server tracks processed keys
Request 1:
POST /payments
Idempotency-Key: abc-123
{amount: 100}
→ Process payment, store result with key abc-123
Request 2 (retry):
POST /payments
Idempotency-Key: abc-123
{amount: 100}
→ Find stored result for abc-123, return same response
→ No duplicate payment
Implementation
Idempotency store schema:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ idempotency_key │ request_hash │ response │ ttl │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ abc-123 │ sha256(...) │ {...} │ 24h │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Flow:
1. Receive request with idempotency key
2. Check if key exists in store
3. If exists:
a. Verify request_hash matches (same request)
b. Return stored response
4. If not exists:
a. Process request
b. Store response with key
c. Return response
Key Generation
Client-generated keys (recommended):
- UUID v4: 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000
- ULID: 01ARZ3NDEKTSV4RRFFQ69G5FAV
- Custom: {client_id}-{timestamp}-{random}
Requirements:
- Globally unique
- Unpredictable (prevent guessing)
- Client controls key
Request Fingerprinting
Verify retry is same request (not just same key):
request_hash = hash(
method,
path,
body,
relevant_headers
)
If idempotency_key exists but request_hash differs:
→ Return 422: "Idempotency key reused with different request"
At-Most-Once vs At-Least-Once
At-Most-Once
Operation executes 0 or 1 time, never more.
Use when: Duplicate is worse than missing
- Payment processing
- Order creation
- Resource provisioning
Implementation: Idempotency keys with deduplication
At-Least-Once
Operation executes 1 or more times.
Use when: Missing is worse than duplicate
- Event notifications
- Log ingestion
- Analytics events
Implementation: Retry until acknowledged, handle duplicates downstream
Exactly-Once (Hard)
Operation executes exactly 1 time.
Extremely difficult in distributed systems.
Usually achieved through:
- At-least-once delivery + idempotent processing
- Distributed transactions (2PC)
- Saga pattern with compensation
Duplicate Detection Strategies
Strategy 1: Idempotency Key Store
Store: Redis or database
Key: idempotency_key
Value: {
status: "processing" | "completed" | "failed",
response: {...},
created_at: timestamp,
expires_at: timestamp
}
TTL: 24-72 hours typically
Strategy 2: Natural Key Deduplication
Use business identifiers:
- Order: {customer_id}-{cart_id}-{timestamp}
- Payment: {order_id}-{amount}-{currency}
- Transfer: {sender}-{receiver}-{reference}
Check if natural key exists before processing.
Strategy 3: Database Constraints
CREATE TABLE orders (
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
idempotency_key VARCHAR(255) UNIQUE,
...
);
INSERT fails if idempotency_key already exists.
Strategy 4: Optimistic Locking
UPDATE accounts
SET balance = balance - 100, version = version + 1
WHERE id = 123 AND version = 5;
If version changed, retry with new version.
Prevents concurrent duplicate updates.
Handling In-Flight Requests
Problem: Request A starts, Request B (retry) arrives before A completes
Solution 1: Lock on idempotency key
- First request acquires lock
- Retry waits or returns "processing"
Solution 2: Status tracking
- Store "processing" status immediately
- Retry sees "processing", waits or returns 409
Response for in-flight:
HTTP 409 Conflict
{
"error": "Request with this idempotency key is still processing",
"retry_after": 5
}
Idempotency in Different Contexts
Payment APIs
POST /charges
Idempotency-Key: {uuid}
{
"amount": 1000,
"currency": "usd",
"source": "tok_visa"
}
Critical: Never charge twice
Store: idempotency_key → charge_id, status, response
TTL: 24-48 hours
Message Queues
Producer:
- Include message_id in payload
- Retry with same message_id
Consumer:
- Track processed message_ids
- Skip if already processed
Deduplication window: Based on expected retry window
Database Operations
Insert with idempotency:
INSERT INTO orders (id, idempotency_key, ...)
VALUES (gen_id(), 'abc-123', ...)
ON CONFLICT (idempotency_key) DO NOTHING
RETURNING *;
If conflict, fetch existing record.
Event Sourcing
Events naturally idempotent by sequence:
- Event ID: {aggregate_id}-{sequence_number}
- Reject if sequence already exists
- Replay is safe (events are immutable)
Best Practices
Key Storage
- Use fast store (Redis) for hot path
- Persist to database for durability
- Set appropriate TTL (24-72 hours typical)
- Clean up expired keys
Error Handling
If processing fails:
1. Store failure response with key
2. Client retries get same error
3. Client must use NEW key to try again
This prevents infinite retry loops on bad requests.
Documentation
Document clearly:
- Which endpoints require idempotency keys
- Key format requirements
- TTL for stored results
- Error responses for duplicates
Client Implementation
1. Generate idempotency key before first attempt
2. Store key locally until confirmed success
3. Retry with SAME key on network failure
4. Generate NEW key for genuinely new requests
5. Don't reuse keys across different operations
Common Pitfalls
1. Storing only success responses
→ Store failures too, otherwise retry creates duplicate
2. Short TTL
→ Client might retry after TTL expires, causing duplicate
3. Not hashing request body
→ Different requests with same key processed differently
4. Race conditions on concurrent retries
→ Use locks or atomic operations
5. Not handling partial failures
→ Use sagas or compensation for multi-step operations
Related Skills
api-design-fundamentals - API design patterns
rate-limiting-patterns - Handling retries
distributed-transactions - Multi-step operations