Agree. On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I see your point, but why not add the SQL commands right now and support > > transactions in the same way we support them in the project? > > > > It means that we will support TXs only for direct SQL mappings for cache > commands: INSERT (putIfAbsent), MERGE by primary key (put) and DELETE by > primary key (remove). > > Any conditional UPDATEs and DELETEs will not be transactional. Is that ok > for you? > > As for me it is not really obvious or meaningful behavior. > > Sergi > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > 2016-11-08 20:38 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > I am not sure why we don't add the transaction support now, given > that > > we > > > > are going to support insert, update, and delete statements. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Sergi Vladykin < > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> All the SQL statements currently run out of transactions. It is a > big > > > >> feature for 2.0 > > > >> > > > >> Sergi > > > >> > > > >> 2016-11-08 15:09 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com>: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> Currently, we do not support transaction in ODBC at all. I'm not > > quite > > > >>> sure > > > >>> about JDBC, but I believe we do not support them there either. As > far > > > as > > > >>> I know this is because we do not support transactions on the SQL > > level > > > >>> currently. Serge, can you confirm? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > >>> Igor > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > Couldn't agree more about ODBC and JDBC. We must support > savepoints > > > >>> from > > > >>> > SLQ, given the DML functionality being planned for 1.8 release. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Denis Magda < > dma...@gridgain.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> This is how how the savepoints are supported by PostgreSQL [1], > > > Oracle > > > >>> >> [2] and MySQL [3]. The implementation details and behavior are > > > pretty > > > >>> the > > > >>> >> same and similar to the Yakov’s proposal. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> It worth to note that all the engines support multiple > savepoints > > > per > > > >>> >> transaction named uniquely and the RELEASE statement. If the one > > > >>> start a > > > >>> >> second savepoint with the name of an already existed one then > the > > > old > > > >>> >> savepoint will be erased/deleted. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> In addition it makes sense to support the feature at the level > of > > > our > > > >>> >> JDBC [4] and ODBC creating respective sub-tasks. Igor, I’ve > > googled > > > >>> that > > > >>> >> ODBC supports savepoints but didn’t succeed at finding exact > APIs. > > > >>> Please > > > >>> >> assist. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-savepoint. > html > > < > > > >>> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-savepoint.html> > > > >>> >> [2] https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/ > state > > > >>> >> ments_10001.htm <https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B1 > > > >>> >> 9306_01/server.102/b14200/statements_10001.htm> > > > >>> >> [3] http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/savepoint.html < > > > >>> >> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/savepoint.html> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> [4] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/jdbc/basics/ > transact > > > >>> >> ions.html#set_roll_back_savepoints > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> — > > > >>> >> Denis > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > >>> >> wrote: > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > Does anyone know how MySQL or PostgreSQL work with > checkpoints? > > Do > > > >>> they > > > >>> >> > support it in a similar way? > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Yakov Zhdanov < > > > yzhda...@apache.org> > > > >>> >> wrote: > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> >> Alex, I think we should put consecutive checkpoints to stack > > thus > > > >>> your > > > >>> >> >> example should be illegal and should result to exception. And > > we > > > >>> will > > > >>> >> throw > > > >>> >> >> exception on rollback to CP if CP is not defined. > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> --Yakov > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> 2016-11-07 14:23 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk < > > > >>> >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >>> We also should define savepoint behavior and API rules for > > each > > > >>> of the > > > >>> >> >>> transaction concurrency and isolation types. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> * Should rollbackToSavepoint() always release locks or clear > > > saved > > > >>> >> >>> optimistic versions? > > > >>> >> >>> * Are forward-rollbacks allowed, e.g. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> try (Transaction tx = ignite.transactions().txStart()) { > > > >>> >> >>> c.put(1, 1); > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> tx.savepoint("sp1"); > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> c.put(2, 2); > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> tx.savepoint("sp2") > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> c.put(3, 3); > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> tx.rollbackToSavepoint("sp1"); > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> c.put(4, 4); > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> tx.rollbackToSavepoint("sp2"); // Is this allowed? > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> tx.commit(); > > > >>> >> >>> } > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> 2016-11-07 13:47 GMT+03:00 Sergey Kozlov < > > skoz...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>>> Hi, Yakov > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> I suppose it's very very handy feature. > > > >>> >> >>>> My two cents are following: > > > >>> >> >>>> - number of savepoints may be more than one per transaction > > > >>> >> >>>> - what's about RELEASE SAVEPOINT statement? > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Yakov Zhdanov < > > > >>> yzhda...@apache.org> > > > >>> >> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Guys, > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Let's think of implementing savepoints for Ignite > > > transactions. > > > >>> For > > > >>> >> >> me, > > > >>> >> >>>>> this is not too hard to do. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Having "savepoints" seems to be pretty handy. Please > > consider > > > >>> the > > > >>> >> >>>> following > > > >>> >> >>>>> snippet. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> ignite.transactions.; > > > >>> >> >>>>> INSERT INTO table1 VALUES (1); > > > >>> >> >>>>> SAVEPOINT my_savepoint; > > > >>> >> >>>>> INSERT INTO table1 VALUES (2); > > > >>> >> >>>>> ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT my_savepoint; > > > >>> >> >>>>> INSERT INTO table1 VALUES (3); > > > >>> >> >>>>> COMMIT; > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Which should result in values 1 and 3 inserted to table1. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> In Ignite, I think, it would be like the following > > > (preserving > > > >>> the > > > >>> >> >>> same > > > >>> >> >>>>> behavior as above). > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = ....; > > > >>> >> >>>>> IgniteCache<Integer, Integer> c = ....; > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> try (Transaction tx = ignite.transactions().txStart()) { > > > >>> >> >>>>> c.put(1, 1); > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> tx.savepoint("mysavepoint"); > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> c.put(2, 2); > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> tx.rollbackToSavepoint("mysavepoint"); > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> c.put(3, 3); > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> tx.commit(); > > > >>> >> >>>>> } > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> As far as implementation complexity I would give 2 weeks > > > >>> ballpark. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> 5 days - API design and implementation for different types > > of > > > >>> >> >>>> transactions > > > >>> >> >>>>> - savepoint implementation for local transaction objects > > > >>> >> >>>>> - rollback implementation for different types of > > transactions > > > - > > > >>> >> drain > > > >>> >> >>>> local > > > >>> >> >>>>> tx buffers, release remote locks for pessimistic > > transactions, > > > >>> etc. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> 5 days - testing, benchmarking, fixing issues. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Please leave your comments here. I will file a ticket > after > > we > > > >>> >> >> discuss > > > >>> >> >>>> this > > > >>> >> >>>>> and put our summary to it. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Thanks! > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> --Yakov > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> -- > > > >>> >> >>>> Sergey Kozlov > > > >>> >> >>>> GridGain Systems > > > >>> >> >>>> www.gridgain.com > > > >>> >> >>>> > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
