Hey guys,
Several things were discussed lately([1],[2],[3],[4]) around our transaction support.
Here's some some thoughts I have around re-modeling transactions for 7.0:
1. Async options for commit/rollback
- they don't really make sense as a user you don't get any guarantee on the status
of the transaction
- they complicate the code significantly
- I think they should be removed
2. READ_COMMITTED
- it has the same performance as REPEATABLE_READ, but offers less guarantees.
- unlike REPEATABLE_READ, it also behaves inconsistently when the data is owned by
transaction originator
- I think it should be removed
3. Optimistic tx without Write Skew Check (WSC)
- well, without WSC the transactions are not optimistic by definition
- they are something else: an batch update of multiple key/values. If the batch is
successful you know the update was atomic. If it failed you don't get any guarantee
- suggestion: optimistic tx should *always* have WSC enabled (no option to configure it)
- build our batching functionality on top of what currently is optimistic tx without WSC
and document it as such
4. Remove 1PC option
- I'm not totally sure about it, but does it really make sense to have 1PC as an
option? they don't offer any consistency guarantees so async API + non tx do about the
same thing
[1]
http://markmail.org/thread/a7fjko4dyejxqgdy
[2]
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/2177
[3]
http://infinispan.markmail.org/thread/nl2bs7rjvayjcybv
[4]
http://infinispan.markmail.org/thread/vbg6g4otu7djazbc
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (
www.infinispan.org)