This isn't some sort of plan to make me look at SwiftMQ is it? ;-)
James.Strachan wrote: > > This looks like the new SQL for the exclusive locks doesn't work for > SQL Server. (For more background see.... > http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jdbc-master-slave.html > > We are basically doing a 'SELECT * FROM ACTIVEMQ_LOCK FOR UPDATE" > which doesn't seem to be allowed for SQL Server despite being SQL 92 > AFAIK.. > > I wonder if there's some way to refactor the SQL to make it work > nicely on SQL Server - or we could maybe allow the exclusive lock to > be disabled. > > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-JDBC-Persistence-with-SQL-Server-tf2022248.html#a5564170 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
