oh...It is H2 that is unusual in this regard? That is good to know.
The reason I am asking this is because it is my general policy to never use a mutex I don't have to use. Having multiple layers of mutexes is a recipe for trouble IMO. I am trying to decide if I should follow the java code and add a mutex to JdbcConnection or let client code set up its own mutex to protect a shared connection. On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Joonas Pulakka wrote: > The JDBC spec doesn't require Connection to be thread-safe. But H2's > Connection (http://www.h2database.com/javadoc/org/h2/jdbc/ > JdbcConnection.html) is thread-safe. So yes, it's a kind of weird: as > long as you use H2, you'll be fine, but since you're doing it "wrong", > you'll lose interchangeability with other databases. > > Best Regards, > Joonas > > On 21 huhti, 05:41, Chris Schanck <[email protected]> wrote: >> The product I work on happily makes use of 100+ threads over 1 connection in >> certain situations where multiple threads are evaluating different data >> points which need to have the same transaction visibility. So far, H2 is >> decent at this. >> >> Chris >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
