On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Agree. AFAIK ATOMIC cache doesn't perform retries, does it?
>
I think it does, in some cases. Alexey Goncharuk, can you share some wisdom
here?
Agree. AFAIK ATOMIC cache doesn't perform retries, does it?
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Vladimir,
>
> I think non-transactional DML should have the same guarantees as we have in
> Atomic caches. Do you agree? If yes, we should discuss DML behavior in
> conjunctio
Vladimir,
I think non-transactional DML should have the same guarantees as we have in
Atomic caches. Do you agree? If yes, we should discuss DML behavior in
conjunction with Atomic cache behavior.
D.
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Current implementatio
Igniters,
Current implementation of DML is not transactional. We have not guarantees
on what is updated and what is not. When certain update fails due to
concurrent entry change, we perform a retry.
The thing is that re-try doesn't guarantee anything still and it might
introduce subtle performanc
