activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Problem with TransactDatabaseLocker's lock statement
Date Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:18:53 GMT
The lock implementation is picked up from the driver name but there is
currently no variant that does not use the "FOR UPDATE"

If one particular statement is causing problems, you can override the
default to drop the 'FOR UPDATE' using xml config:

 <persistenceAdapter>
           <jdbcPersistenceAdapter dataDirectory=".." lockKeepAlivePeriod="..">
               <statements>
                   <statements
                           lockCreateStatement="SELECT * FROM
ACTIVEMQ_LOCK"
                           stringIdDataType=".." >
                   </statements>
               </statements>
           </jdbcPersistenceAdapter>
       </persistenceAdapter>

On 25 June 2012 17:32, mikmela <mikmela@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's the specific version of SQL server that we're using, but
> S*ELECT * FROM ACTIVEMQ_LOCK WHERE ID=1 FOR UPDATE* throws exception *"FOR
> Update clause allowed only for DECLARE CURSOR" *...
> I'm using 5.6.0 - Am I missing something in connection string or
> configuration properties?
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Problem-with-TransactDatabaseLocker-s-lock-statement-tp4653552.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



-- 
http://fusesource.com
http://blog.garytully.com

Mime
View raw message