| From: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG-MQ? |
| Date: | 2007-06-20 11:56:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20514.125.24.217.75.1182340573.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, June 20, 2007 18:18, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
>> As I understand, JMS does not have a concept
>> of transactions, probably also other solutions mentioned before,
>> so to use PgQ as backend for them should be much simpler...
>
> JMS certainly does have the concept of transactions. Both distributed
> ones through XA and two-phase commit, and local involving just one JMS
> provider. I don't know about others, but would be surprised if they
> didn't.
Wait... I thought XA did two-phase commit, and then there was XA+ for
*distributed* two-phase commit, which is much harder?
Jeroen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-06-20 12:00:56 | Re: PG-MQ? |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2007-06-20 11:29:17 | Re: PG-MQ? |