Future of Ignite transactions

[yzhdanov]

I agree with Vladimir here. I always have some awkward feelings when
explaining our optimistic transactions behavior. Let's fix it now.

--Yakov

[dsetrakyan]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dima,
>
> I doubt you ever heard from users "we need snapshot isolation" because this
> is implementation detail, rather than public behavior :-)
>

Believe me, I have. People want to make sure that the data is not changed
from the call to tx.start(...). What we have, is making sure that it does
not change after it has been accessed the 1st time.

This is not an implementation detail, this is a different transaction
semantic.


> I already explained what we are fixing - broken TX API. 6 possible modes, 5
> real modes, 2 broken modes (OPT+RC, OPT+RR), and only *two (!!!)* modes
> which are really used in practice (PES+RR, OPT+SER). Do you still think it
> is not broken?
>

I have not seen any clean proposal yet. I do not want to break it even more
:)

[dsetrakyan]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with Vladimir here. I always have some awkward feelings when
> explaining our optimistic transactions behavior. Let's fix it now.
>

In that case, let's try to come up with a cleaner proposal. The new design
has to make sense right away. It should not be this difficult to explain.