| From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(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 11:29:17 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0706200429w4cafb38eo6e0bdd2cddcef79f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/20/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> 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.
Ah, sorry, my mistake then. Shouldn't trust hearsay :)
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2007-06-20 11:56:13 | Re: PG-MQ? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-06-20 11:18:31 | Re: PG-MQ? |