Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: XA support

From: peter royal <proyal(at)pace2020(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: XA support
Date: 2005-06-30 20:17:57
Message-ID: 6D580D22-AC78-453A-914A-A36168F995C3@pace2020.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm leaning towards approach C myself, since it's the simplest to  
> implement and doesn't cause any unexpected prepares. Or possibly  
> even violating the spec and not allowing to start another  
> transaction before the previous one has been prepared. It depends  
> on how the popular application servers behave in real life.

'C' seems best to me also.

I'm using pg with a custom wrapper that fakes XA, and each  
transaction gets its own physical connection from the pool. Depending  
on how an appserver integrates connection pooling and their TM, it  
might never be a problem.

Blocking shouldn't ever cause a deadlock, as the JTA timeout on the  
transaction should kick in and forcibly rollback (this would happen  
when used with JOTM, I can't vouch for other TM's). Could be some  
nasty unexpected pauses though :)

A non-spec compliant switch would be nice too, as you suggest.
-pete

-- 
peter royal -> proyal(at)pace2020(dot)com

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2005-06-30 20:31:31
Subject: Re: Problem with datestyle and driver jdbc
Previous:From: Alberto MolteniDate: 2005-06-30 20:17:37
Subject: Problem with datestyle and driver jdbc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group