invokeAsync and OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABILE transaction

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
kimec.ethome.sk kimec.ethome.sk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

invokeAsync and OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABILE transaction

Is it possible to call invokeAsync() with OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE isolation?

What are the transactional guarantees when using invokeAsync()?

Thanks!

Kamil
ilya.kasnacheev ilya.kasnacheev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: invokeAsync and OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABILE transaction

Hello!

Why not?

They're the same as when you just call invoke().

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 22 мая 2019 г. в 20:17, Kamil Mišúth <[hidden email]>:
Is it possible to call invokeAsync() with OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE isolation?

What are the transactional guarantees when using invokeAsync()?

Thanks!

Kamil
kimec.ethome.sk kimec.ethome.sk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: invokeAsync and OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABILE transaction

Hi Ilya,

thank you. I have found a sort of an indirect example here [1].

Since transaction.commit() is a blocking operation, I wonder what is the
semantics with invokeAsync in that case. Will the caller thread invoking
commit() be blocked until invokeAsync finishes?

---
S pozdravom,

Kamil Mišúth

[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/mvcc/MvccUnsupportedTxModesTest.java#L361-L366

On 2019-05-27 15:58, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Why not?
>
> They're the same as when you just call invoke().
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
> ср, 22 мая 2019 г. в 20:17, Kamil Mišúth <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Is it possible to call invokeAsync() with OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE
>> isolation?
>>
>> What are the transactional guarantees when using invokeAsync()?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kamil
ilya.kasnacheev ilya.kasnacheev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: invokeAsync and OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABILE transaction

Hello!

You can do something computation-intensive locally after calling invokeAsync. This is indeed a somewhat niche feature.

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 5 июн. 2019 г. в 11:05, kimec.ethome.sk <[hidden email]>:
Hi Ilya,

thank you. I have found a sort of an indirect example here [1].

Since transaction.commit() is a blocking operation, I wonder what is the
semantics with invokeAsync in that case. Will the caller thread invoking
commit() be blocked until invokeAsync finishes?

---
S pozdravom,

Kamil Mišúth

[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/mvcc/MvccUnsupportedTxModesTest.java#L361-L366

On 2019-05-27 15:58, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Why not?
>
> They're the same as when you just call invoke().
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
> ср, 22 мая 2019 г. в 20:17, Kamil Mišúth <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Is it possible to call invokeAsync() with OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE
>> isolation?
>>
>> What are the transactional guarantees when using invokeAsync()?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kamil