activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <>
Subject Re: null BROKER_NAME to be expected?
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:53:38 GMT
The LeaseDatabaseLocker does use the BROKER_NAME column, but the
default jdbc locker does not. Old threads would refer to the default

The LeaseDatabaseLocker will null out the broker name when it releases
the lease.

Have a peek at the statements that manipulate the lock table in:

Also, possibly try setting the leaseHolderId attribute on the locker.

On 9 August 2012 02:26, Gaurav Sharma <> wrote:
> In the ACTIVEMQ_LOCK table, is the null value in BROKER_NAME to be
> expected? I read some old threads about this but couldn't find a definitive
> answer from one of the committers. While it is a minor inconvenience for
> us, at runtime, without scanning logs of the broker machines, there is a no
> way to figure who the master is. So, if we have a column that is expected
> to contain the master node's name, it might be easier if we can just fix
> it. It might not matter but just for the record, my test datastore is mysql
> and I do have the brokerName attribute specified in the broker entity in
> activemq.xml and this snippet from LeaseDatabaseLocker class should work
> okay:
>     public String getLeaseHolderId() {
>         if (leaseHolderId == null) {
>             if (persistenceAdapter.getBrokerService() != null) {
>                 leaseHolderId =
> persistenceAdapter.getBrokerService().getBrokerName();
>             }
>         }
>         return leaseHolderId;
>     }
> Thanks in advance for helping figure where the ghost is that's nulling the
> broker name in lock table.
> -gaurav


View raw message