[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5714?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16721488#comment-16721488
]
Dmitriy Pavlov commented on IGNITE-5714:
----------------------------------------
[~agoncharuk] please share your vision should we do both tickets
simultaneously?
> Implementation of suspend/resume for pessimistic transactions
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-5714
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5714
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: general
> Reporter: Alexey Kuznetsov
> Assignee: Alexey Kuznetsov
> Priority: Major
>
> Support transaction suspend()\resume() operations for pessimistic
> transactions. Resume can be called in another thread.
> _+But there is a problem+_: Imagine, we started pessimistic transaction in
> thread T1 and then perform put operation, which leads to sending
> GridDistributedLockRequest to another node. Lock request contains thread id
> of the transaction. Then we call suspend, resume in another thread and we
> also must send messages to other nodes to change thread id.
> It seems complicated task.It’s better to get rid of sending thread id to the
> nodes.
> We can use transaction xid on other nodes instead of thread id. Xid is sent
> to nodes in GridDistributedLockRequest#nearXidVer
> _+Proposed solution+_ : On remote nodes instead of thread id of near
> transaction GridDistributedLockRequest#threadId use its xid
> GridDistributedLockRequest#nearXidVer.
> Remove usages of near transaction's thread id on remote nodes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
