Re: PostgreSQL XAResource & GlassFish 3.1.2.2
От | Bryan Varner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL XAResource & GlassFish 3.1.2.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 511C119E.8070409@polarislabs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PostgreSQL XAResource & GlassFish 3.1.2.2 (Bryan Varner <bvarner@polarislabs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL XAResource & GlassFish 3.1.2.2
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
>> Why would each XAConnection need it's own pool? > > Because one PostgreSQL connection can't interleave transactions, > and you can't commit or roll back a prepared transaction in a > connection which has a transaction open. I thought you wanted to > be able to do such things. They could be done if one XAConnection > could map to more than one PostgreSQL connection. Assuming that each logical XAConnection is backed by exactly one physical PGPooledConnection (and all connections are busy servicing an XID) then the situation you've described is completely accurate, and no different than the situation posed by the current XA implementation. Adding one physical connection to the data source, for use by the XAResource control signals (commit / rollback / recover / etc.) should be sufficient to avoid a deadlock in a client app. (you'd have to be able to queue the control statements and synchronously respond) I don't think you need a 'pool' per XAConnection, but you may need a number of extra physical connections in order to dispatch / handle non-xa invocations. Regards, -Bryan Varner
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: