A transaction has a lot of overhead, but is a good way to go. For removes the current EntitySync implementation does in fact use a sort of transaction log. The nice thing about timestamps is they tell you what records have been changed since a certain time so you know which records have changes that need to be updated since the last update time. There are issues with multiple app servers if their times are out of sync by more than a few minutes. Most other issues seem to be related to people not understanding how this works and how to handle different issues. Of course, that alone can be fatal flaw in a design and probably is in this case.
To really do this you'd have to have a more structured record of the changes than just recording an SQL statement if you want to support syncing from one type of database to another (which is currently supported). -David On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Deyan Tsvetanov wrote: > Hi guys, > > so about the transaction log: > > I have a table called TRANSLOG with the following structure: > > > CREATE TABLE translog > ( > id bigserial NOT NULL, > "table" character varying(30) NOT NULL, > operation character varying(6) NOT NULL, > "statement" character varying NOT NULL, > created_on timestamp with time zone NOT NULL DEFAULT now(), > CONSTRAINT id_fk PRIMARY KEY (id) > ) > > Records in the TRANSLOG table are being inserted by the triggers for the > table we are "watching" for changes on INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE. > The STATEMENT column contains executable SQL statement which is generated by > the trigger function. The following screenshot shows some data in the > TRANSLOG table: > > > > So every time some database action is performed on the tables we are > "watching" we get a TRANSLOG entry. > > Each translog entry has a sequence ID. So when we want to PUSH that > transaction log to the main server we actually execute the statements ON the > main server. We execute the statements wrapped in a transaction which gets > rolled back if an error has occured. > > The translog push gets invoked by a stored procedure which gets called by a > scheduled reoccuring job in ofbiz. > For each sync SP execution we store a record in a table called > TRANSLOG_EXEC_LOG . There we keep the currently reached translog_id so we > know from where to start the next time > when the sync SP is invoked. > > So in general that's the mechanism. Pretty simple to implement, pretty simple > to troubleshoot and pretty error resistant . Here's the screenshot of > TRANSLOG_EXEC_LOG: > > > > The result message could be either OK or the DB error message - either a > constraint error or some other error. We always know which was the last > successfully executed statement ( > last_command_id ). If there is an error then we know at which statement the > error has happened - the next after the last successful one. > > That's all in general. > > -- deyan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > Reply-to: "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > To: Deyan Tsvetanov <deyan.tsveta...@ittconsult.com>, user@ofbiz.apache.org > Cc: Hans Bakker <h.bak...@antwebsystems.com>, m...@emforium.com > Subject: Re: ofbiz entity sync. > Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:31:49 +0200 > > Hi Deyan, > > Thanks for your clear explanation and suggestion. As I'm busy with another > stuff, I have quickly put your comment as a quote in OFBIZ-3333 . > > Jacques > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Deyan Tsvetanov > To: Jacques Le Roux > Cc: Hans Bakker ; m...@emforium.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:42 AM > Subject: Re: ofbiz entity sync. > > > Hi Sirs, > > I'm sorry, i got lost for some time :) > Things happen :) > > There was a lot of discussion on the topic, but the summary: > > there are some major issues that CAN be fixed in the current implementation: > error recovery - due to interrupted connection between the two servers, sync > speed - RMI can be removed , etc. > > There is however a major issue that CAN NOT be fixed in the current > implementation: the list and sequence of entities to be synchronized gets > created by entities' timestamp - date_created_tx and last_update_tx. It works > as long as the clocks of all the syncing parties are in sync. You can easily > achieve this by using NTP for example - reliable enough. But if the clock of > one of the parties gets un-synced for just few minutes, and during those few > minutes records get inserted or updated than you are in trouble. Syncing the > clock back won't help you because you won't be able to sync the broken > records due to foreign key constraint issues. Examples I could give but I > guess you could think of such by yourselves :) > > So IMHO the best approach for synchronization is not the timestamp but the > TRANSACTION LOG. This approach is used in all major databases - m$ $ql, > oracle. > > For a customer I've implemented a transaction log based on triggers and > stored procedures. The transaction log, triggers and the stored procedures > however I implemented only postgresql as that was the customer's database. > It's easy to implement ms sql or oracle version though. It works perfectly, > much much much faster than RMI, recovers if the sync process is interrupted , > etc. My goal was to implement this mechanism using entity engine level > triggers and eventually commit it, but unfortunately still pretty busy with > other things so we don't have resources that can be dedicated to work on that > task at the moment, we're trying to work out the world financial crisis :) > > So if you find what i say reasonable you could go ahead with the triggers and > SPs. For that you need database that supports triggers - so mysql won't work > :) > > That was just the first part. > > The second part is to identify all the tables that you need to synchronize. > Some of them will be only pulled, some of them pushed only and some of them > synced in both directions. Next you need to test, reset the database and > test again and again until you identify the correct list of the tables so > your sync process doesn't end up with FK insert / update errors. That is > pretty easy but time consuming task - it takes few days to complete :) > > So that's all I can say for now, without getting your bored with details :) > If you have other questions - go ahead :) > > Cheers, > Deyan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > Reply-to: "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > To: Hans Bakker <h.bak...@antwebsystems.com>, deyan.tsveta...@ittconsult.com, > m...@emforium.com > Subject: Re: ofbiz entity sync. > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:04:29 +0200 > > Hi Hans, > > I put a comment with an abstract of the situation. Please let me know what > you think to get the ball rolling > > Thanks > > Jacques > > From: "Hans Bakker" < > h.bak...@antwebsystems.com > > > > Hi Gentleman, > > > > may i ask if there was any progress on this issue? > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3333 > > > > > I added the following comment: > > > > We have a customer using entity sync and experiencing the problems in > > this issue. > > > > We are interested working with other parties on this subject. If there > > is already substantial work done we are interested to compensate > > financially for it. > > > > Please let me know if there is any progress here. > > > > regards, > > Hans > > > > -- > > > http://www.antwebsystems.com > : > > Quality OFBiz support for competitive rates.... > > > > > > > >
