Re: PG-MQ?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG-MQ?
Date: 2007-06-20 11:18:31
Message-ID: 46790D07.5030700@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

  • Re: PG-MQ? at 2007-06-20 10:58:20 from Marko Kreen

Responses

  • Re: PG-MQ? at 2007-06-20 11:29:17 from Marko Kreen
  • Re: PG-MQ? at 2007-06-20 11:56:13 from Jeroen T. Vermeulen

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2007-06-20 11:29:17 Re: PG-MQ?
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2007-06-20 10:58:20 Re: PG-MQ?