| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| 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 12:00:56 |
| Message-ID: | 467916F8.1000604@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> 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?
Well, I meant distributed as in one transaction manager, multiple
resource managers, all participating in a single atomic transaction. I
don't know what XA+ adds on top of that.
To be precise, being a Java-thing, JMS actually supports two-phase
commit through JTA (Java Transaction API), not XA. It's the same design
and interface, just defined as Java interfaces instead of at native
library level.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Butler | 2007-06-20 12:42:19 | Re: PG-MQ? |
| Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2007-06-20 11:56:13 | Re: PG-MQ? |