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)