On Wed, June 20, 2007 18:18, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Marko Kreen wrote: >> As I understand, JMS does not have a concept >> of transactions, probably also other solutions mentioned before, >> so to use PgQ as backend for them should be much simpler... > > JMS certainly does have the concept of transactions. Both distributed > ones through XA and two-phase commit, and local involving just one JMS > provider. I don't know about others, but would be surprised if they > didn't.
Wait... I thought XA did two-phase commit, and then there was XA+ for *distributed* two-phase commit, which is much harder? Jeroen ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
