Craig Ringer wrote:
Distributed transactions will give you atomicity if done right - with
two-phase commit (2PC) - but AFAIK will *NOT* give you consistency
across the databases in question.
That's useful to know -- thanks. At least now I know my idea won't
work, so I can forget about it and
On 06/01/2011 11:11 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
My recollection of distributed transactions is that the manager tells
all players to do their thing. Then they each tell the manager "ok, did
the deed". Then, if all players say ok, each of them is told by the
manager to go ahead and commit, else rollba
Craig Ringer wrote:
On 1/06/2011 4:52 AM, Pete Chown wrote:
Is there a solution to this, or is the point that I'm simply asking too
much? Perhaps the Java EE container is not promising consistency in the
sense I'm talking about.
Distributed transactions will give you atomicity if done right
On 1/06/2011 4:52 AM, Pete Chown wrote:
Is there a solution to this, or is the point that I'm simply asking too
much? Perhaps the Java EE container is not promising consistency in the
sense I'm talking about.
Distributed transactions will give you atomicity if done right - with
two-phase comm
Hello,
I am interested in creating a system where Java EE distributed
transactions would work with multiple Postgres databases. I'm having
some difficulty understanding the transaction isolation guarantees that
I would get from this configuration. Can I make my distributed
transactions SERI
