Continuous query not transactional ?

[VeenaMithare <v....@cmcmarkets.com>]

Hi ,

This is in continuation of the below statement on this post : 
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Lag-before-records-are-visible-after-transaction-commit-tp33787p33861.html

>>Continuous Query itself is not transactional and it looks like it can't be
used for this at the moment. So, it gets notification before other entries
were committed.

Does this mean we could get dirty reads as updates in continuous query ?
i.e. for eg if the code is as below:
1. Start transaction  
2. update records of cache a
3. update records of cache b
4. update records for cache c
5. commit

if update of cache a succeeds , but update of cache b fails, will the local
listener for continuous query for 'cache a' get an update ?

regards,
Veena.


regards
Veena.



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Continuous query not transactional ?

[VeenaMithare <v....@cmcmarkets.com>]

Hi Ilya,

That is what I assume too, could someone from the developers community help
confirm/comment on  this ?

regards,
Veena.



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Continuous query not transactional ?

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

I'm not sure, but I would assume that changes are visible after commit(),
but you can see these changes in any order, and you can see cache a update
without cache b update, for example. This is for committed transactions.

For rolled back transactions, I don't know. I expect you won't be able to
see change as you have described, but won't bet on it.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


чт, 15 окт. 2020 г. в 20:35, VeenaMithare <v....@cmcmarkets.com>:

> Hi ,
>
> This is in continuation of the below statement on this post :
>
> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Lag-before-records-are-visible-after-transaction-commit-tp33787p33861.html
>
> >>Continuous Query itself is not transactional and it looks like it can't
> be
> used for this at the moment. So, it gets notification before other entries
> were committed.
>
> Does this mean we could get dirty reads as updates in continuous query ?
> i.e. for eg if the code is as below:
> 1. Start transaction
> 2. update records of cache a
> 3. update records of cache b
> 4. update records for cache c
> 5. commit
>
> if update of cache a succeeds , but update of cache b fails, will the local
> listener for continuous query for 'cache a' get an update ?
>
> regards,
> Veena.
>
>
> regards
> Veena.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>