Guillaume, it depends unfortunately. In distributed cases, checking the
status of a transaction could mean remote calls. That's why I was saying
I'd rather not have the unnecessary overhead if not needed.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Guillaume Smet
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Personally having entities dirtied as part of a read-only transaction sounds
> like an application bug to me. We could try to detect a read-only
> transaction state (not sure how we'd do that across all cases) and
> circumvent the flush the
Personally having entities dirtied as part of a read-only
transaction sounds like an application bug to me. We could try to detect a
read-only transaction state (not sure how we'd do that across all cases)
and circumvent the flush there, but that would add unnecessary overhead to
applications that
