Read-only mode for transactional cache

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Igniters,

As we all know, transactional cache updates persistence store from a client
node, while loads are still done on primary node. But it's not always
possible to have a database connection on client. There is a workaround -
send a closure to server node and start a transaction there. You can do the
same with gets, but what if you want to utilize near cache?
Now it's achievable only by disabling consistency check and removing store
from client.

The use case looks more than valid for me, so I suggest to improve
usability here and add a special read-only mode for transactional cache. In
this mode updates are not allowed, but we do not create the store and we
fix consistency check appropriately.

And in addition: currently if we disable consistency check on one of the
nodes, other nodes still check it - this looks incorrect. I think it should
be excluded everywhere.

Thoughts?

--
Val

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Guys,

I was communicating with one of our users and he faced this issue. I think
we should fix it, so I created a ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-941

Feel free to comment on design.

--
Val

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> As we all know, transactional cache updates persistence store from a
> client node, while loads are still done on primary node. But it's not
> always possible to have a database connection on client. There is a
> workaround - send a closure to server node and start a transaction there.
> You can do the same with gets, but what if you want to utilize near cache?
> Now it's achievable only by disabling consistency check and removing store
> from client.
>
> The use case looks more than valid for me, so I suggest to improve
> usability here and add a special read-only mode for transactional cache. In
> this mode updates are not allowed, but we do not create the store and we
> fix consistency check appropriately.
>
> And in addition: currently if we disable consistency check on one of the
> nodes, other nodes still check it - this looks incorrect. I think it should
> be excluded everywhere.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Val
>