Igor, Make sense. I've fixed the implementation according to your proposal.
ср, 21 авг. 2019 г. в 17:59, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>: > Probably, we need separate configuration for > Thin Clients as a part of ClientConnectorConfiguration? > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:36 PM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Pavel, > > > > Thank you for the review! > > > > Igniters, > > > > Also, I want to bring here a discussion about configuring limit for > active > > transactions per thin client connection. > > > > I see two ways to configure such limit: > > 1. A new system property > > 2. A new ClientConnectorConfiguration class property. > > > > In the current implementation, I've introduced a new system > > property IGNITE_THIN_MAX_ACTIVE_TX_PER_CONNECTION. Pavel proposes to > > configure limit via ClientConnectorConfiguration. > > > > Such limit is only reliable to thin clients, but > > ClientConnectorConfiguration is also used for JDBC and ODBC connections > as > > well. A new property in ClientConnectorConfiguration will be useless for > > JDBC and ODBC (since they use one transaction per connection) and may be > > confusing. > > > > Which way is better, WDYT? > > > > > > > > чт, 15 авг. 2019 г. в 11:46, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > I've checked the patch, protocol changes look good to me. See reply in > > > Jira. > > > But we certainly need more eyes on this. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:36 AM Alex Plehanov < > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > Java thin client doesn't support affinity awareness yet (ticket [1] > is > > in > > > > progress now), but changes to correctly work with protocol version > > 1.4.0 > > > > was made, so java thin client will work properly with 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 > > > > protocol versions. > > > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11898 > > > > > > > > чт, 15 авг. 2019 г. в 10:23, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > Could you please elaborate about thin client protocol versioning. > As > > I > > > > > see 1.5.0 is supposed to be a version supporting transactions. And > we > > > > > already have a version 1.4.0 with affinity awareness support. I > > > > > forgot, does Java thin client support affinity awareness? Will it > > work > > > > > properly if it does not? > > > > > > > > > > ср, 14 авг. 2019 г. в 13:59, Alex Plehanov < > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, all dependent tickets are resolved and I've completed > the > > > > > > implementation of thin client transactions support. The patch [1] > > > > > includes > > > > > > server-side implementation and java thin client-side > > implementation. > > > > > > Changes to thin client protocol and top-level view of > > implementation > > > > also > > > > > > described in IEP [2]. > > > > > > Can anyone review the patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9410 > > > > > > [2]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 27 мая 2019 г. в 13:27, Alex Plehanov < > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, .NET client has such capability. Pavel Tupitsyn already > > > mentions > > > > > it > > > > > > > in this thread. As far as I understand, in .NET client > > > implementation > > > > > to > > > > > > > dispatch responses dedicated thread is used. > > > > > > > In a draft implementation of IGNITE-11685 I've used another > > > approach: > > > > > each > > > > > > > request thread can read a response (if lock is acquired by this > > > > thread > > > > > > > successfully) and complete a future of its own request or > another > > > > > threads > > > > > > > request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 27 мая 2019 г. в 13:01, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I am quite curious about async implementations from other > > clients. > > > > Is > > > > > > >> there any design document describing such implementations? > Does > > > .NET > > > > > > >> client have such capability? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Actually, I forgot to finish my previous message. One of my > > > concerns > > > > > > >> is that a concurrent response dispatch does not sound as a > > trivial > > > > > > >> thing. So, I would like to understand if we already have a > good > > > > > > >> approach for that. If not then I suppose it worth a > discussion. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> пн, 27 мая 2019 г. в 12:51, Alex Plehanov < > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi Ivan. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thin client transactions support is not only for java thin > > > client. > > > > > There > > > > > > >> > are other clients, some of them already work in async mode. > > > > > > >> > Ticket IGNITE-11685 already has draft implementation too, > but > > > now > > > > > it's > > > > > > >> > based on some changes to java thin client which were made by > > > > > > >> "transaction > > > > > > >> > support" implementation. I think this ticket will be ready > in > > a > > > > > couple > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > days after "transaction support" will be merged. And both > > > patches > > > > > will > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > included in the same release. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > пн, 27 мая 2019 г. в 11:57, Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Regarding a problem with possible deadlock when two > > concurrent > > > > > > >> > > transactions from the same client are trying to lock the > > same > > > > key > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > an issue [1]. It seems to me that without fixing the issue > > > [1] a > > > > > > >> > > client transactions feature is not practical. Everyone who > > > uses > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > client from multiple threads can face a deadlock which is > > > > > impossible > > > > > > >> > > to deal with. Or am I missing something here? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > One workaround I can imagine is failing a transactions > > > execution > > > > > from > > > > > > >> > > concurrent threads for a first time. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11685 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 21 мая 2019 г. в 19:05, Alex Plehanov < > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Guys, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I've updated the IEP [1]. Please have a look. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > вт, 21 мая 2019 г., 14:19 Alex Plehanov < > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, I have plans to do that (at least for java thin > > > > client). > > > > > > >> Something > > > > > > >> > > > > like new class "ClientTransactionConfiguration" inside > > > > > > >> > > > > "ClientConfiguration". > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > вт, 21 мая 2019 г. в 13:37, Павлухин Иван < > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Are you going to introduce settings specifying > default > > > > values > > > > > > >> for tx > > > > > > >> > > > >> concurrency and isolation in client configuration? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> пн, 20 мая 2019 г. в 19:34, Alex Plehanov < > > > > > > >> plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Igor, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Perhaps we don't really need to use server's > default > > > > values > > > > > > >> for tx > > > > > > >> > > > >> > parameters. It's a minor fix and can be easily > > > > implemented > > > > > if > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > >> > > will be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > required in the future. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > I will update IEP tomorrow regarding point 1 and > > point > > > 3. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for your feedback. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > пн, 20 мая 2019 г. в 15:24, Igor Sapego < > > > > > isap...@apache.org>: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Ivan, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > This may be a good point for a DBMS, but Ignite > is > > > much > > > > > more > > > > > > >> than > > > > > > >> > > > >> just a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > DBMS and Ignite client code is not just an SQL > > query > > > > > (which > > > > > > >> > > execution > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > inherently heavily depends on DBMS). With > database > > > user > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > expecting > > > > > > >> > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > server have a lot of control on query execution. > > But > > > > with > > > > > > >> Ignite, > > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> my > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > opinion, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > user writes generic code including business logic > > in > > > > > native > > > > > > >> > > language > > > > > > >> > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > may > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > expect more deterministic behaviour from a > client. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Also, thick clients do not use server-side > > defaults. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Of course, this question is debatable and It's > not > > > > like I > > > > > > >> 100% > > > > > > >> > > against > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > server-side > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > defaults here, I just suggest to discuss it in > more > > > > > detail. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Best Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Igor > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 2:21 PM Павлухин Иван < > > > > > > >> > > vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Igor, Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Regarding point 1. I must say that SQL vendors > > > > usually > > > > > > >> allow to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > configure default timeouts and a transaction > > > > isolation > > > > > on a > > > > > > >> > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > side. E.g. in MySQL you can do a following: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > set local tx_isolation = <isolation> -- per SQL > > > > client > > > > > > >> session > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (usually physical network connection) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > set global tx_isolation = <isolation> -- global > > > > > settings, > > > > > > >> all > > > > > > >> > > > >> clients > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (which does not override it) are affected > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > So, if it is a standard practice why should do > it > > > > > > >> differently? > > > > > > >> > > If it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > is not, we can continue discussion. Do we have > > some > > > > > > >> examples > > > > > > >> > > > >> following > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > opposite way (client-wide default setting)? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > пн, 20 мая 2019 г. в 13:50, Igor Sapego < > > > > > > >> isap...@apache.org>: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > 1. In my opinion, having client-specific > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > parameters is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > expected > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > client when have different arguments > depending > > on > > > > > server > > > > > > >> seems > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > unexpected > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > and can lead to hard-to-debug bugs and issues > > > when > > > > > > >> updating > > > > > > >> > > from > > > > > > >> > > > >> old to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > server versions. Also it goes against common > > > > practice > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > > >> arguments of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > client and thus, may be even more unexpected. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I believe that if we want to add ability to > > > client > > > > to > > > > > > >> adopt > > > > > > >> > > some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > server's > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > defaults > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > we should implement it as separate feature, > and > > > it > > > > > > >> should not > > > > > > >> > > be a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > default > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > behaviour for client, user should explicitly > > > state > > > > > that > > > > > > >> they > > > > > > >> > > want > > > > > > >> > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > behaviour, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > so it won't be unexpected for them. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > 3. "Flags" field looks like a good solution > to > > > me. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Igor > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:58 PM Alex > Plehanov > > < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi, Igor > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 1. I think it's better to have the ability > to > > > > > configure > > > > > > >> > > > >> transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > parameters (for example configure default > > > timeout > > > > > for > > > > > > >> all > > > > > > >> > > > >> clients) on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > server-side, then don't have such ability > and > > > > > always > > > > > > >> use > > > > > > >> > > some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > predefined > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > client-side values (which can be different > > for > > > > > > >> different > > > > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > implementations). At least default timeout > is > > > > more > > > > > > >> server > > > > > > >> > > > >> specific > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > then > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > client specific parameter since it can > affect > > > > > > >> server-side > > > > > > >> > > > >> processes > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (PME > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > for example). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 2. IgniteUuid has 24 bytes length. This tx > id > > > > > needs to > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > >> included to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > each > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > cache operation under a transaction. And it > > > > almost > > > > > > >> will not > > > > > > >> > > > >> simplify > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > code. Also, thin clients don't know how to > > deal > > > > > with > > > > > > >> > > IgniteUuid > > > > > > >> > > > >> now, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > there > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > is no such entity in the protocol, there > are > > no > > > > > > >> described > > > > > > >> > > rules > > > > > > >> > > > >> on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > how > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > convert it to a string. For > > > monitoring/debugging > > > > > > >> purposes we > > > > > > >> > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > the same presentation of this entity on > > server > > > > and > > > > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> sides. I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > think if > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > we need to know real tx id on the client > side > > > > it's > > > > > > >> better to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > additionally > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > include this value to OP_TX_START response > > (we > > > > > also can > > > > > > >> > > > >> serialize it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > as a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > string to avoid introducing new entity on > > > client > > > > > side) > > > > > > >> or > > > > > > >> > > > >> create a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > operation to explicitly request tx id (for > > > > example > > > > > > >> > > OP_TX_INFO). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 3. Make sense, we can reuse deprecated > > "flags" > > > > > field > > > > > > >> > > > >> (undeprecate > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > it), > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > which is included now to each cache > > operation. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > пт, 17 мая 2019 г. в 18:49, Igor Sapego < > > > > > > >> isap...@apache.org > > > > > > >> > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > I had a look at IEP and have several > > > comments: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Why would one want to use to use > > server's > > > > > default > > > > > > >> > > values > > > > > > >> > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Concurrency > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > or Isolation? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > I believe, client should have its own > > > defaults > > > > > which > > > > > > >> > > should be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > explicitly > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > documented, so that > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > behaviour of transactions will not depend > > on > > > > the > > > > > > >> server > > > > > > >> > > node > > > > > > >> > > > >> it was > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > routed > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > to. The same goes > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > for timeout. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Not sure about transaction ID > > represented > > > by > > > > > int. > > > > > > >> Why > > > > > > >> > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> to use > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > IgniteUuid? It should simplify > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > server code. Also it may help with > > > > > > >> monitoring/debugging if > > > > > > >> > > > >> thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > clients > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > server nodes use the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > same identifier for transactions. It does > > not > > > > > seem > > > > > > >> as a > > > > > > >> > > big > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > overhead > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > me > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > either. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 3. Maybe it makes sense to add "In > > > transaction" > > > > > > >> boolean > > > > > > >> > > flag > > > > > > >> > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > operation request header > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > to avoid bloating message size in > > > non-affected > > > > > > >> scenarios. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:58 PM Alex > > > Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi, Ivan. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. Transaction id in thin client > protocol > > > > it's > > > > > > >> just a tx > > > > > > >> > > > >> counter > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > current connection. It's not related to > > > > > > >> > > GridCacheVersion. > > > > > > >> > > > >> If we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > want to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > know GridCacheVersion on the client > > side, I > > > > > think > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >> > > should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > introduce a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > type of operation (for example > > OP_TX_INFO). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > 2. Error handling is already provided > by > > > thin > > > > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> protocol, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > even in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > case > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > of empty response. Of course, the > client > > > will > > > > > know > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > >> > > there > > > > > > >> > > > >> is a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > failure > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > occurred during OP_TX_END operation. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > 3. AFAIK some of thin client > > > implementations > > > > > > >> already > > > > > > >> > > send > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > requests > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > process responses in an async way (.NET > > for > > > > > > >> example). As > > > > > > >> > > > >> for java > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > client, in the current implementation > > > channel > > > > > is > > > > > > >> locked > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > exclusively > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > before > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > request send and until the response is > > > > > processed. > > > > > > >> I have > > > > > > >> > > > >> some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ideas > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > about > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > how to fix this (split send/receive > > process > > > > > into > > > > > > >> two > > > > > > >> > > > >> different > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > parts > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > acquire locks for this parts separately > > or > > > > > create > > > > > > >> > > futures on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > request > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > sent > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > and complete it after processing the > > > response > > > > > in a > > > > > > >> > > dedicated > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thread), > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > I've > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > created ticket [1] for this issue and > > will > > > > try > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > implement > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > prototype > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > couple of days. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > About suspend/resume, yes, on > server-side > > > we > > > > > should > > > > > > >> > > resume > > > > > > >> > > > >> tx > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > before > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > each > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > transactional cache operation and > suspend > > > the > > > > > tx > > > > > > >> after > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > operation. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > In > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > my > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > opinion, suspend/resume approach have > > > several > > > > > > >> advantages > > > > > > >> > > > >> over > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > approach > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > explicit tx id argument: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Introducing explicit tx id argument > for > > > > cache > > > > > > >> > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> leads > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > to a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > significant API change > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > - It's not clear how to use it together > > > with > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (tx-per-thread) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > approach (for example, what if a thread > > is > > > > > already > > > > > > >> held > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > transaction and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > someone call cache operation with > > explicit > > > tx > > > > > id?) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Suspend/resume feature will also be > > > useful > > > > > for > > > > > > >> thick > > > > > > >> > > > >> clients > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Suspend/resume functionality is > already > > > > > partially > > > > > > >> > > > >> implemented > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > optimistic transactions only) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11685 > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 3 мая 2019 г. в 08:10, Павлухин > Иван > > < > > > > > > >> > > > >> vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I went through IEP [1] and I have a > > > couple > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > questions: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. What is going to be used as > > > transaction > > > > > id? > > > > > > >> In a > > > > > > >> > > > >> described > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > protocol > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I see an int field for it. Should not > > it > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> GridCacheVersion > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > corresponding to > > > > IgniteInternalTx#xidVersion? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2. OP_TX_END message assumes an empty > > > > > response, > > > > > > >> but I > > > > > > >> > > > >> think > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > that > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > errors during tx finish are possible > > and > > > > > should > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > >> returned in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > response. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3. In IEP it is stated that async > > > > processing > > > > > of > > > > > > >> lock > > > > > > >> > > > >> operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > be introduced on a client side to > > enable > > > > > > >> concurrent > > > > > > >> > > > >> operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > different client threads. Do you have > > an > > > > idea > > > > > > >> how to > > > > > > >> > > > >> achieve > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > it? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, a bit about a suspend/resume > > > trait. I > > > > > > >> tried to > > > > > > >> > > think > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > about > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > leaving away an existing transactions > > > > > > >> implementation > > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ignite. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > As I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > understood we are going to resume a > tx > > > > before > > > > > > >> each > > > > > > >> > > cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > operation in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > the tx and resume the tx after the > > > > > operation. All > > > > > > >> > > this to > > > > > > >> > > > >> make > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > an > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > executing thread available for other > > > > > operations > > > > > > >> (e.g. > > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> other > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > txs). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > From the first glance it seems like > an > > > > > inversed > > > > > > >> > > logic. A > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > straightforward way is to execute a > > cache > > > > > > >> operation > > > > > > >> > > > >> within a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > particular transaction defined as an > > > > > explicit tx > > > > > > >> id > > > > > > >> > > > >> argument > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (e.g. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > cache.put(key, value, txid)). Can we > do > > > so? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > And leaving for now thin client API. > I > > > > > cannot say > > > > > > >> > > that one > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > proposed > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > IEP is good or bad. I can only say > that > > > it > > > > > > >> ressembles > > > > > > >> > > > >> current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thick > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client API. And perhaps it should > not. > > I > > > > > think > > > > > > >> that we > > > > > > >> > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > consider > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > similar APIs provided by other > vendors > > > and > > > > > keep > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > > mind > > > > > > >> > > > >> that we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > bunch of client implementations for > > > > different > > > > > > >> > > languages. I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > suppose > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > that we can return to it a little bit > > > > later. > > > > > And > > > > > > >> I > > > > > > >> > > hope > > > > > > >> > > > >> that we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > will > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > do it. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > вт, 30 апр. 2019 г. в 13:24, Alex > > > Plehanov > > > > < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've update IEP [1] and implement > PoC > > > > > > >> according to > > > > > > >> > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > approach > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > (multiple > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > concurrent transactions per > > > connection). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > But to move forward another feature > > > need > > > > > to be > > > > > > >> > > > >> implemented: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > suspend/resume > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for pessimistic transactions > > > (IGNITE-5714 > > > > > [2]). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Implementation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > suspend/resume is ready now and > > ticket > > > in > > > > > > >> 'Patch > > > > > > >> > > > >> available' > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > status. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > transactions expert help with > review > > of > > > > > > >> IGNITE-5714? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > [2]: > > > > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5714 > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > чт, 4 апр. 2019 г. в 11:32, Alex > > > > Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, then I will rewrite IEP in > the > > > near > > > > > > >> future. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 4 апр. 2019 г. в 11:14, > > Vladimir > > > > > Ozerov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should be able to > > handle > > > > many > > > > > > >> > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > through a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > single > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> connection. This will make our > > > > protocol > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > implementations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> more efficient, and simplicity > > from > > > > > > >> developer's > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > perspective > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > our > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> goal. Consider normal nodes. We > > have > > > > > server > > > > > > >> > > nodes and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > nodes. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > You > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> may > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> span whatever number of > > transactions > > > > you > > > > > > >> need, > > > > > > >> > > but > > > > > > >> > > > >> all of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > them > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > are > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> coordinated through a single > > > > connection. > > > > > > >> The same > > > > > > >> > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > applicable to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> thin clients. Protocol is > already > > > > > designed > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > handle > > > > > > >> > > > >> this, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > as we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > pass > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> unique operation ID in order to > > > > > distinguish > > > > > > >> one > > > > > > >> > > > >> operation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > another. It > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> is true, though, that we will > have > > > to > > > > > > >> introduce a > > > > > > >> > > > >> kind of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > "session" > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> concept, and pass additional > > > > identifier > > > > > > >> along > > > > > > >> > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >> cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > operations, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> this doesn't sound like a > problem > > to > > > > me. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> And provided that currently > > > > server-side > > > > > > >> > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> are > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > bound > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > threads > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> artificially, I would say that > the > > > > first > > > > > > >> step in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > implementation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transactions on thin clients > > should > > > be > > > > > > >> decoupling > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > server-side > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> from threads. Without this we > will > > > > have > > > > > very > > > > > > >> > > > >> inefficient > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > implementation, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> when every new client > transaction > > > have > > > > > to > > > > > > >> spawn > > > > > > >> > > a new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thread. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > This > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > slow > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> and introduces high memory > > pressure > > > > on a > > > > > > >> cluster > > > > > > >> > > > >> node. We > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > already > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > work > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> way for MVCC transactions which > > are > > > > > spawned > > > > > > >> from > > > > > > >> > > JDBC > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > driver, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> me, we do not want to replicated > > > this > > > > > bad > > > > > > >> > > practice to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > other > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > clients > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Vladimir. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:08 AM > > Alex > > > > > > >> Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Guys, so, do we need multiple > > > > > concurrent > > > > > > >> > > > >> transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > per > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > connection? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > There are pros and cons for > each > > > > > approach. > > > > > > >> > > > >> Difference > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > between > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> approaches: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > One transaction at a time per > > > > > connection: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - This approach is used in > > RDBMS > > > > > world > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > users > > > > > > >> > > > >> got > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > used to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - To use transactions > > > concurrently > > > > > users > > > > > > >> need > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> use > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > different > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> connections > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > and get these connections via > > > > > something > > > > > > >> like a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > pool > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Easy to implement (in fact, > > PoC > > > > is > > > > > > >> already > > > > > > >> > > done) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Multiple concurrent > transactions > > > per > > > > > > >> > > connection: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - At least for java thin > > client, > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > implement > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > per > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> thread > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > approach as implemented now > for > > > the > > > > > thick > > > > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > (perhaps > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > other > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > clients can implement the same > > > > > > >> abstraction) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - There is also protocol > change > > > for > > > > > all > > > > > > >> cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > needed > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > (to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> bind > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > cache operation to the > > > transaction) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Significant changes to all > > > > > implemented > > > > > > >> > > clients > > > > > > >> > > > >> are > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > needed > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Implementation on the > server > > > side > > > > > is > > > > > > >> more > > > > > > >> > > > >> complex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > What do you think? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 16:29, > Alex > > > > > Plehanov > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Ilya, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > We should be able to > > multiplex > > > > > several > > > > > > >> > > > >> transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > using > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > single > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Client connection. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > In this case, we should > > > > > significantly > > > > > > >> change > > > > > > >> > > > >> cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> (for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > each implemented client), to > > > bind > > > > > each > > > > > > >> > > operation > > > > > > >> > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transaction. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I want to also ask if > > "Number > > > of > > > > > > >> entries > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > participating in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > (may be approximate). 0 - > > > default > > > > > > >> value." is > > > > > > >> > > > >> needed. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried to minimize API > > > changes > > > > > > >> between > > > > > > >> > > thick > > > > > > >> > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > simplify move from one to > > > another. > > > > > It's > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > only > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > reason. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > But I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > you, the parameter is not > very > > > > > useful. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 14:48, > > Ilya > > > > > > >> Kasnacheev < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Hello! > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Pavel, I agree with you > > > > thorougly. > > > > > We > > > > > > >> > > should be > > > > > > >> > > > >> able > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > multiplex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > several > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> transactions using a single > > > > Client > > > > > > >> > > connection. > > > > > > >> > > > >> This > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > means > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > adding > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Transaction id parameter to > > > every > > > > > > >> affected > > > > > > >> > > cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > operation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > / > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > statement > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> (if applicable) to make > sure > > we > > > > do > > > > > > >> cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > relevant > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> transaction. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> This is how other things > work > > > in > > > > > > >> Ignite, > > > > > > >> > > such as > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > communication. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > We do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> open dozens of connections, > > we > > > > > > >> multiplex > > > > > > >> > > > >> operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > asynchronously > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > through > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> a single connection. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> I think that trying to pool > > > > Ignite > > > > > > >> > > connections > > > > > > >> > > > >> will > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > highly > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> inconvenient, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> since there is no existing > > > > > > >> infrastructure > > > > > > >> > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> such > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > pooling > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > (like > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> there > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> exists for JDBC). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> I want to also ask if > "Number > > > of > > > > > > >> entries > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > participating > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > (may > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> be approximate). 0 - > default > > > > > value." is > > > > > > >> > > needed. > > > > > > >> > > > >> Does > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > actually > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> anything in our tx > protocol? > > > > Users > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > existing > > > > > > >> > > > >> APIs > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > are > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > already > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> confused > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> by > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> this parameter, if we could > > get > > > > > rid of > > > > > > >> it in > > > > > > >> > > > >> thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > protocol it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > would > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> be nice clean-up. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> -- > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 09:55, > > > Pavel > > > > > > >> Tupitsyn < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > now we can only support > > one > > > > > active > > > > > > >> > > > >> transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > per > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > I totally understand > > > > server-side > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > protocol > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > limitations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> causing > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > this. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > But I have no idea how to > > > > support > > > > > > >> this in > > > > > > >> > > > >> .NET Thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Client, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > example. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > It is thread-safe and can > > > > handle > > > > > > >> multiple > > > > > > >> > > > >> async > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > parallel. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > But with TX support we > have > > > to > > > > > > >> somehow > > > > > > >> > > switch > > > > > > >> > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > single-threaded > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> mode > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > avoid unexpected effects. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > Any ideas? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at > 6:38 > > > PM > > > > > Alex > > > > > > >> > > Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Dmitriy, thank you! > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Guys, I've created the > > IEP > > > > [1] > > > > > on > > > > > > >> wiki, > > > > > > >> > > > >> please > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > have a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > look. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > [1] > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > чт, 28 мар. 2019 г. в > > > 14:33, > > > > > > >> Dmitriy > > > > > > >> > > Pavlov > > > > > > >> > > > >> < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > I've added > permissions > > to > > > > > account > > > > > > >> > > > >> plehanov.alex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Recently Infra > > integrated > > > > > Apache > > > > > > >> LDAP > > > > > > >> > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > confluence, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > so > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > possible > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > login using Apache > > > > > credentials. > > > > > > >> > > Probably > > > > > > >> > > > >> we can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > ask > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > infra > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> extra > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > permissions to edit > > pages > > > > > should > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > added > > > > > > >> > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > committers. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > ср, 27 мар. 2019 г. в > > > > 13:37, > > > > > Alex > > > > > > >> > > > >> Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > About current tx: > ok, > > > > then > > > > > we > > > > > > >> don't > > > > > > >> > > > >> need tx() > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > method > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> interface > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > at > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > all (the same > cached > > > > > > >> transaction > > > > > > >> > > info > > > > > > >> > > > >> user > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > store > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > by > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > himself). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > About decoupling > > > > > transactions > > > > > > >> from > > > > > > >> > > > >> threads on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> side: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > now, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > can start with > > > > > > >> thread-per-connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> approach > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > (we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > only > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > one > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > active transaction > > per > > > > > > >> connection, > > > > > > >> > > see > > > > > > >> > > > >> below, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > so we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > need > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > additional > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > dedicated thread > for > > > each > > > > > > >> connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > active > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transaction), > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > later > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > change server-side > > > > > internals to > > > > > > >> > > process > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > any > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > thread (not > dedicated > > > to > > > > > this > > > > > > >> > > > >> connection). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > This > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > change > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > affect > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > thin client > protocol, > > > it > > > > > only > > > > > > >> > > affects > > > > > > >> > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > side. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > In any case, we > can't > > > > > support > > > > > > >> > > concurrent > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > per > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > the client side > > without > > > > > > >> fundamental > > > > > > >> > > > >> changes > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> protocol > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > (cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > operation doesn't > > bound > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> or > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thread > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > doesn't > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > know which thread > on > > > the > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > > side do > > > > > > >> > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > cache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> operation). > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > In > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> my > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > opinion, if a user > > > wants > > > > > to use > > > > > > >> > > > >> concurrent > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > transactions, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> must > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> use > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > different > connections > > > > from > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> pool. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > About semantics of > > > > > > >> suspend/resume > > > > > > >> > > on the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > client-side: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> absolutely > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > different than > > > > server-side > > > > > > >> > > semantics (we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > don't > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > need > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > suspend/resume > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > pass transaction > > > between > > > > > > >> threads on > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > client-side), > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > but > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> can't > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > implemented > > efficiently > > > > > without > > > > > > >> > > > >> implemented > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > suspend/resume on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > server-side. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Can anyone give me > > > > > permissions > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> create IEP > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > wiki? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > ср, 27 мар. 2019 > г. в > > > > > 11:59, > > > > > > >> > > Vladimir > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ozerov > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > My comments was > > only > > > > > about > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > >> protocol. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Getting > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> info > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> about > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > transaction > should > > be > > > > > > >> handled by > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > itself. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > It > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > protocl's > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > concern. Same > about > > > > other > > > > > > >> APIs and > > > > > > >> > > > >> behavior > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > case > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > attempted from > the > > > same > > > > > > >> thread. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Putting protocol > > > aside, > > > > > > >> > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > complicated > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> matter. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > would > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > propose to route > > > > through > > > > > IEP > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > wide > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > community > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> discussion. We > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> need > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > review API and > > > > semantics > > > > > very > > > > > > >> > > > >> carefully, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > taking > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> SUSPEND/RESUME > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > count. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Also I do not see > > how > > > > we > > > > > > >> support > > > > > > >> > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > efficiently > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > without > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > decoupling > > > transactions > > > > > from > > > > > > >> > > threads > > > > > > >> > > > >> on the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > side > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> first. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Because > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > without it you > will > > > > need > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > dedicated > > > > > > >> > > > >> server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > thread > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> every > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > client's > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > transaction which > > is > > > > slow > > > > > > >> and may > > > > > > >> > > even > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > crash > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > server. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, > > 2019 > > > at > > > > > > >> 11:44 AM > > > > > > >> > > Alex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Vladimir, what > if > > > we > > > > > want > > > > > > >> to get > > > > > > >> > > > >> current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > info > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> (tx() > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > method)? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Does close() > > method > > > > > mapped > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > TX_END(rollback)? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > For example, > this > > > > code: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > try(tx = > > > txStart()) { > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > tx.commit(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > } > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Will produce: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > TX_START > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > TX_END(commit) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > TX_END(rollback) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Am I understand > > you > > > > > right? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > About xid. > There > > is > > > > yet > > > > > > >> another > > > > > > >> > > > >> proposal. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Use > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > unique > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > per > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > id > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > (integer, > simple > > > > > counter) > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > > > >> identifying > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transaction on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > commit/rollback > > > > > message. > > > > > > >> The > > > > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> gets > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > this > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > id > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > from the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > transaction > info > > > and > > > > > sends > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > >> > > back > > > > > > >> > > > >> to the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > when > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> trying > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > commit/rollback > > > > > > >> transaction. > > > > > > >> > > This > > > > > > >> > > > >> id is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > shown > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> users. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> But > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > also > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > pass from > server > > to > > > > > client > > > > > > >> real > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > transaction id > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > (xid) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > info > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > for diagnostic > > > > > purposes. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > And one more > > > > question: > > > > > what > > > > > > >> > > should > > > > > > >> > > > >> we do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > if the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > starts > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > transaction > > without > > > > > ending > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > old > > > > > > >> > > > >> one? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > end the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > old > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > implicitly > > > (rollback) > > > > > or > > > > > > >> throw > > > > > > >> > > an > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > exception to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> client? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > In > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> my > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > opinion, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > the first > option > > is > > > > > > >> better. For > > > > > > >> > > > >> example, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > if we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > got > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> previously > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > used > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > connection from > > the > > > > > > >> connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> pool, we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > worry > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > about > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > any > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > uncompleted > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> started > > > > > > >> > > by > > > > > > >> > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > previous > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > user > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > connection. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > ср, 27 мар. > 2019 > > > г. в > > > > > > >> 11:02, > > > > > > >> > > > >> Vladimir > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Ozerov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > As far as > > > > > > >> > > > >> SUSPEND/RESUME/SAVEPOINT - we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > them > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > yet, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > adding > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > them in > future > > > > > should not > > > > > > >> > > > >> conflict with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > simple > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> START/END > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar > 27, > > > > 2019 > > > > > at > > > > > > >> 11:00 > > > > > > >> > > AM > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Vladimir > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Ozerov > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > I am not > sure > > > we > > > > > need 5 > > > > > > >> > > > >> commands. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Wouldn't > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> enough > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > have > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > only > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > two? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > START - > > accepts > > > > > > >> optional > > > > > > >> > > > >> parameters, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > returns > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> info > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > END - > > provides > > > > > commit > > > > > > >> flag, > > > > > > >> > > > >> returns > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > void > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar > > 27, > > > > > 2019 at > > > > > > >> > > 8:26 AM > > > > > > >> > > > >> Alex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Sergey, > yes, > > > the > > > > > > >> close is > > > > > > >> > > > >> something > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > like > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > silent > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > rollback. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > But > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> also > > implement > > > > > this > > > > > > >> on the > > > > > > >> > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > side, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > just > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> rollback > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > ignoring > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> errors in > > the > > > > > > >> response. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> ср, 27 > мар. > > > 2019 > > > > > г. в > > > > > > >> > > 00:04, > > > > > > >> > > > >> Sergey > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Kozlov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > skoz...@gridgain.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Nikolay > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Am I > > > correctly > > > > > > >> > > understand you > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > points: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > - > > close: > > > > > rollback > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > - > > commit, > > > > > close: > > > > > > >> do > > > > > > >> > > > >> nothing > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > - > > > rollback, > > > > > > >> close: do > > > > > > >> > > > >> what? (I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > suppose > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > nothing) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Also you > > > > assume > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > after > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > commit/rollback > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > need > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > free > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > resources > > on > > > > > server > > > > > > >> > > > >> node(s)or just > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > do on > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > started > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > TX? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, > > Mar > > > > 26, > > > > > > >> 2019 at > > > > > > >> > > > >> 10:41 PM > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Alex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Sergey, > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > close() > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > method in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > thick > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> client, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > it's > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > behavior > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > slightly > > > > > > >> different than > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > rollback() > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > method > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > (it > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > rollback > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > if > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > transaction > > > > > is not > > > > > > >> > > > >> committed and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> already > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > committed). > > > > I > > > > > > >> think we > > > > > > >> > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> try-with-resource > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > semantics > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > thin > > > client > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> OP_TX_CLOSE will > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > useful > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > >> suspend/resume > > > > > > >> > > > >> didn't > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > work > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > yet > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> pessimistic > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > transactions. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Also, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the > main > > > > goal > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > >> suspend/resume > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > is to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > passing > > > > > between > > > > > > >> > > threads. > > > > > > >> > > > >> In the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client, the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > bound > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the > > client > > > > > > >> connection, > > > > > > >> > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> think > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > passing > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > between > > > > > different > > > > > > >> > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > connections > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> very > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > useful > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > case. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 26 > > > мар. > > > > > 2019 > > > > > > >> г. в > > > > > > >> > > > >> 22:17, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Nikolay > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Izhikov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hello, > > > > Alex. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We > > also > > > > have > > > > > > >> suspend > > > > > > >> > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > resume > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > operations. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I > > think > > > we > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > > > >> support them > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > вт, > 26 > > > > марта > > > > > > >> 2019 г., > > > > > > >> > > > >> 22:07 > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Sergey > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > Kozlov > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > skoz...@gridgain.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Looks > > > > > like I > > > > > > >> missed > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > something > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > but > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > why > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> need > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > OP_TX_CLOSE > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> operation? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Also I > > > > > > >> suggest to > > > > > > >> > > > >> reserve a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > code > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> SAVEPOINT > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > operation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > which > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> very > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > useful > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to > > > > > understand > > > > > > >> where > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > has > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > been > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> rolled > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> back > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On > > > Tue, > > > > > Mar > > > > > > >> 26, > > > > > > >> > > 2019 > > > > > > >> > > > >> at 6:07 > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > PM > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Alex > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Plehanov < > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello > > > > > > >> Igniters! > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I > > > want > > > > > to > > > > > > >> pick > > > > > > >> > > up the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ticket > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > IGNITE-7369 > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> add > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > support > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > our > > > > thin > > > > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > implementation. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I've > > > > > looked > > > > > > >> at > > > > > > >> > > our > > > > > > >> > > > >> current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> have > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> proposals > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > >> > > transactions: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Add > > > > new > > > > > > >> > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> to thin > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> protocol: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> OP_TX_GET, > > > > > > >> > > 4000, > > > > > > >> > > > >> Get > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> for > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> OP_TX_START, > > > > > > >> > > > >> 4001, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Start a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> OP_TX_COMMIT, > > > > > > >> > > > >> 4002, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Commit > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > OP_TX_ROLLBACK, > > > > > > >> > > > >> 4003, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Rollback > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> OP_TX_CLOSE, > > > > > > >> > > > >> 4004, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Close > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > From > > > > the > > > > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > side > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > (java) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > interfaces > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> will be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > added: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> interface > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > ClientTransactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > { > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ClientTransaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > txStart(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ClientTransaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> txStart(TransactionConcurrency > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > concurrency, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > TransactionIsolation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > isolation); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ClientTransaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> txStart(TransactionConcurrency > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > concurrency, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > TransactionIsolation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > isolation, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > long > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> timeout, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> int > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > txSize); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > ClientTransaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > tx(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > // > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Get > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> current > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > transaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > ClientTransactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > withLabel(String > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > lb); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > } > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> interface > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > ClientTransaction > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > extends > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > AutoCloseable { > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > IgniteUuid > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > xid(); // > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Do > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > it? > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > TransactionIsolation > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> isolation(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > TransactionConcurrency > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> concurrency(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> long > > > > > > >> > > > >> timeout(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> String > > > > > > >> > > > >> label(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> void > > > > > > >> > > > >> commit(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> void > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > rollback(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > >> void > > > > > > >> > > > >> close(); > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > } > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > From > > > > the > > > > > > >> server > > > > > > >> > > > >> side, I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > think > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > as a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> step > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > (while > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > transactions > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> suspend/resume > > > > > > >> > > is not > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > fully > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > implemented) > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > can > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > use > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > same > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > approach > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > as > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for > > > > > JDBC: > > > > > > >> add a > > > > > > >> > > new > > > > > > >> > > > >> worker > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > each > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > ClientRequestHandler > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> process > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > requests by > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > > >> worker if > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> transaction is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > started > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > explicitly. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > ClientRequestHandler > > > > > > >> > > > >> is > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > bound to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > connection, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > so > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > there > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1:1 > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > relation > > > > > > >> between > > > > > > >> > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > connection > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > thread, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > which > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > process > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> transaction. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, > > > > > there > > > > > > >> is a > > > > > > >> > > > >> couple of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > issues > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > I > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > discuss: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > overloaded > > > > > > >> > > > >> method > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > txStart > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> different > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > set > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > arguments. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Some > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of > > > the > > > > > > >> arguments > > > > > > >> > > may > > > > > > >> > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > missing. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > To > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > pass > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> arguments > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > OP_TX_START > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> & > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > -- > > > > > > >> > > Best regards, > > > > > > >> > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
