Erlang/OTP: Synchronous vs. Asynchronous messaging

Adam's answer is great, but I have one point to add

Using handle_call will block the process for the duration of the call.

This is always true for the client who made the handle_call call. This took me a while to wrap my head around but this doesn't necessarily mean the gen_server also has to block when answering the handle_call.

In my case, I encountered this when I created a database handling gen_server and deliberately wrote a query that executed SELECT pg_sleep(10), which is PostgreSQL-speak for "sleep for 10 seconds", and was my way of testing for very expensive queries. My challenge: I don't want the database gen_server to sit there waiting for the database to finish!

My solution was to use gen_server:reply/2:

This function can be used by a gen_server to explicitly send a reply to a client that called call/2,3 or multi_call/2,3,4, when the reply cannot be defined in the return value of Module:handle_call/3.

In code:

-module(database_server).
-behaviour(gen_server).
-define(DB_TIMEOUT, 30000).

<snip>

get_very_expensive_document(DocumentId) ->
    gen_server:call(?MODULE, {get_very_expensive_document, DocumentId}, ?DB_TIMEOUT).    

<snip>

handle_call({get_very_expensive_document, DocumentId}, From, State) ->     
    %% Spawn a new process to perform the query.  Give it From,
    %% which is the PID of the caller.
    proc_lib:spawn_link(?MODULE, query_get_very_expensive_document, [From, DocumentId]),    

    %% This gen_server process couldn't care less about the query
    %% any more!  It's up to the spawned process now.
    {noreply, State};        

<snip>

query_get_very_expensive_document(From, DocumentId) ->
    %% Reference: http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/proc_lib.html#init_ack-1
    proc_lib:init_ack(ok),

    Result = query(pgsql_pool, "SELECT pg_sleep(10);", []),
    gen_server:reply(From, {return_query, ok, Result}).

1. Depends on your situation.

   If you want to get a result, handle_call is really common. If you're not interested in the result of the call, use handle_cast. When handle_call is used, the caller will block, yes. This is most of time okay. Let's take a look at an example.

   If you have a web server, that returns contents of files to clients, you'll be able to handle multiple clients. Each client have to wait for the contents of files to be read, so using handle_call in such a scenario would be perfectly fine (stupid example aside).

   When you really need the behavior of sending a request, doing some other processing and then getting the reply later, typically two calls are used (for example, one cast and the one call to get the result) or normal message passing. But this is a fairly rare case.

2. Using handle_call will block the process for the duration of the call. This will lead to clients queuing up to get their replies and thus the whole thing will run in sequence.

   If you want parallel code, you have to write parallel code. The only way to do that is to run multiple processes.

So, to summarize:

• Using handle_call will block the caller and occupy the process called for the duration of the call.
• If you want parallel activities to go on, you have to parallelize. The only way to do that is by starting more processes, and suddenly call vs cast is not such a big issue any more (in fact, it's more comfortable with call).