Vladimir, I think non-transactional DML should have the same guarantees as we have in Atomic caches. Do you agree? If yes, we should discuss DML behavior in conjunction with Atomic cache behavior.
D. On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> wrote: > Igniters, > > Current implementation of DML is not transactional. We have not guarantees > on what is updated and what is not. When certain update fails due to > concurrent entry change, we perform a retry. > > The thing is that re-try doesn't guarantee anything still and it might > introduce subtle performance degradation in case of complex queries. > > As it has no value for users, I propose to drop it altogether. Semantically > nothing will change from user perspective as we have no guarantees. > > Thoughts? > > Vladimir. >
