On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:38:46 PM UTC-8, Kartweel wrote: > > It will be 2. >
Thanks. > and the second create table will fail because the table already exists. > Yep; thanks. > But I don't see how that has anything to do with being thread safe? > I'm sure I worded it badly. I am trying to see how best to run parallel unit tests using the maven-surefire-plugin,<http://lairdnelson.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/concurrent-testing/>where you can control parallelism at the process and thread level. I didn't see anything in the H2 documentation about whether a "mem" database was one-per-process or one-per-thread. > The in memory database is per process, so all threads access the same > database. > Thank you; this is what I was looking for. Is there a spot in the documentation that says this explicitly? > If you want a separate database per thread then give the databases > different names. > That has been my approach so far; it dawned on me (wrongly, as it turns out) that perhaps I was overengineering something—that perhaps jdbc:h2:mem was enough for a private per-thread database, but as you point out it is not. Thanks for your time and the clarity of your response. Best, Laird -- http://about.me/lairdnelson -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
