shibpid serializable transactions

[Charles R. Tompkins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: users [mailto:users-bounces at shibboleth.net] On Behalf Of Cantor,
> Scott
> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 4:50 PM
> To: Shib Users <users at shibboleth.net>
> Subject: Re: shibpid serializable transactions
> 
> On 3/6/16, 3:32 PM, "users on behalf of Charles R. Tompkins" <users-
> bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of crt at ufl.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> >What is the reasoning behind making the transaction isolation level
> >serializable for these transactions?
> 
> It is the basic contract the code requires, or there would be no point to
using
> a relational database because the application would have to do all the
> locking and error handling anyway. Lower isolation levels violate the
basic
> properties of a transaction.
> 
> Oracle, and most databases, refuse to actually implement serializable
> transactions anymore. At best they require proprietary SQL or a number of
> configuration changes to approximate it.
> 
> The only allowance I'm willing to make for that insanity is the retry
logic, and
> I'm not happy about that.
> 
> >It's not easily agreeing with my multimode environment.
> 
> It is a *requirement* of a multinode system because the locking can't be
> done in the application without using a distributed lock manager. If the
code
> weren't assuming multiple nodes, then it wouldn't be a big burden to
> implement the locking internally and lower the isolation level to begin
with.
> 
> -- Scott
> 

Thanks for the explanation, Scott. I'm thankful for the retries!

-Charles
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20160307/dbd442f8/attachment.p7s>