Chris, Jonathon, Thanks for the info.
Is there a Jira issue for this? this definitely needs fixed, if someone can give thorough instructions for reproducing (without waiting 8 hours) and any thoughts on a solution in Jira, I'll try to look at this next week. - Andrew On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 23:17 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > Chris is right, it's deprecated. > > I was mistaken, autoReconnect didn't solve my problems. I used attribute > "validationQuery". Works > even with autoCommit false. Does OFBiz have something similar? Or is it too > MySQL-specific? > > Jonathon > > Chris Howe wrote: > > Autoreconnect was marked deprecated in mysql's Connector/J (jdbc) in > > 3.2 and removed in 3.3 > > > > Jonathon is likely using 3.1.14 > > > > I have very little interest or experience in database features and > > couldn't tell you if what comes along in Connector/J 5 is worth the > > change or necessary or anything else, except to tell you that > > Connector/J 5 is recommended to use with MySql 5. This is another > > reason I'm switching to Postgres (at least for the ERP work). There > > seems to be more people that might have an interest/experience in these > > details using Postgres around in the OFBiz community, so any issues > > will likely be uncovered before my deployment is affected by it :) > > > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Andrew, > >> > >> I can confirm 2 things: > >> > >> 1. I tested "autoReconnect=true" to work in Tomcat deployment (not > >> OFBiz); will > >> get "Communication link failure" after timeout (8 hours in my > >> setup) > >> otherwise. > >> > >> 2. I have never had a similar timeout incident with OFBiz; I'm using > >> "autoReconnect=true" and MySQL. > >> > >> Jonathon > >> > >> Andrew Sykes wrote: > >>> Chris, > >>> > >>> I thought the timeout issue was resolved by adding the "? > >>> autoReconnect=true" to the jdbc-uri? > >>> > >>> Interested to hear more... > >>> > >>> - Andrew > >>> > >>> On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 15:43 -0800, Chris Howe wrote: > >>>> Hey Eric, > >>>> > >>>> The only technical reason so far was the issue with max_timeout. > >> A > >>>> default installation connection will timeout after 8 hours of > >>>> inactivity and may cause some problems with misses after that 8 > >> hours. > >>>> You can change this to up to 24 days which should alleviate some > >>>> issues, but I'm not sure how extensive a test I can do to see if > >> there > >>>> are any repercussions from doing that. I'm also not sure there's > >> much > >>>> momentum to address the issue any time soon. I know I don't have > >> any > >>>> momentum in learning about it. Issues that pop up regarding > >> Postgres > >>>> specifically, I think would garner a bit more attention. > >>>> > >>>> Licensing issues were the main driving force though. After > >> reading up > >>>> a bit there just seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty > >> surrounding > >>>> MySql licensing most of it can be gleaned by reading: > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL#License_issues > >>>> I'd prefer to not worry about what Oracle and SAP are doing to > >> each > >>>> other. > >>>> > >>>> Postgres being BSD and originating from University of California > >> seems > >>>> a bit safer on the legal front. We've see a lot of opportunity > >> using > >>>> OFBiz in our industry and may wish to do something in the future > >> and > >>>> want to expand our knowledge in areas that keep our options open. > >>>> > >>>> ,Chris > >>>> > >>>> --- Eric Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Chris, just out of curiosity, what made you decide to move from > >> mysql > >>>>> to postgres? > >>>>> > >>>>> On 3/1/07, Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> The error is most likely on this side of the keyboard, but the > >>>>>> dummy-fks didn't work for me going from mysql to postgres. Even > >>>>> with > >>>>>> it ticked, postgres got mad about referential integrity. I > >> didn't > >>>>> dig > >>>>>> into it any further, that's going to be one of the things I do > >> look > >>>>>> into when i set aside some time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm just thinking abstractly, wouldn't something like the > >> following > >>>>>> work for writing to the correct order > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Start with a HashSet > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Get Record > >>>>>> If has parent > >>>>>> get parent > >>>>>> Is parent in Hashset? > >>>>>> yes->write record > >>>>>> no-> does parent have parent? > >>>>>> ..etc > >>>>>> If does not have parent > >>>>>> write record > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. Data write/load order for hierarchy fk integrity (parent*Id > >>>>> -> > >>>>>>> *Id) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think 2 can be addressed pretty well (of course not 100% > >> fool > >>>>>>> proof) > >>>>>>>> if the output file is written in the right order. > >>>>>>> This is actually not possible to do, ie sorting a graph with > >>>>> loops is > >>>>>>> NP-hard. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That is why we have the dummy-fks thing, which of course should > >>>>> ONLY > >>>>>>> be used for a case like this where you are sure that there are > >> no > >>>>> bad > >>>>>>> fk records. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -David > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
