On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Pedro Ruivo <pedro(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 11:56 AM, Galder ZamarreƱo wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> So, they're always sync, right?
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> +1. So, if you remove RC, and we only have RR, you can get rid of the isolation
level configuration property altogether? We don't implement SERIALIZABLE, nor
READ_UNCOMMITTED.
>
> actually, I have plans to introduce UPDATE-SERIALIZABLE consistency :)
I never get my head around this: what's the difference between UPDATE-SERIALIZABLE
and one-copy serializable? :-)
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (
www.infinispan.org)
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev