activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jamie McCrindle" <jamiemccrin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JDBC Master Slave with SQL Server (was Re: [ANN] Apache ActiveMQ 4.1 released!)
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:39:17 GMT
> If you can figure out the right SQL that SQLServer needs to
> create an exclusive table lock (and keep it open until
> the connection dies) then it should be easy to patch the JDBC adapter

Cool. Will give it a go when some of the noise dies down over here.

cheers,
j.

On 12/6/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/6/06, Jamie McCrindle <jamiemccrindle@gmail.com> wrote:
> > heh, it was the thread where you said "use a different database" :)
> here's
> > the fix message:
> >
> >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org/msg03257.html
>
> Thanks :)
>
>
> > > I don't remember I'm afraid - I do remember a fix going in for pure
> > > JDBC Master/Slave for MySQL. I"m not sure if the pure JDBC
> > > Master/Slave has been tested yet for SQL Server - fancy trying it out?
> > > :)
> >
> > Happy to! Just wanted to know if I was buying myself some trouble
> without
> > the locking support.
>
> It should be pretty simple to fix. We recently had a similar issue
> with MySQL and the fix was just figuring out the right SQL to create
> an exclusive lock on the table so we can implement master/slave
> properly using JDBC. If you can figure out the right SQL that SQL
> Server needs to create an exclusive table lock (and keep it open until
> the connection dies) then it should be easy to patch the JDBC adapter
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message