I think it makes sense not to validate store configuration unless we know that the entry is enlisted as WRITE.
I've created the issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3086 2016-05-04 5:28 GMT-07:00 Denis Magda <[email protected]>: > As Val already mentioned you can't mix write-through and write-behind > caches > in a single transactions. > > However, in my understanding I don't see any reason why we can't mix these > caches taking into account that the one will be used for 'read' operations > only. > > Alex G. or Sam can you share your thoughts? Do we need to create a JIRA > ticket? > > In any case presently I see the following solutions: > > 1) make all caches that participate in the transaction either write-through > or write-behind; > > 2) use IgniteCache.getAllOutTxAsync(...) for the cache that is used to read > data, probably it will work in your case. Note that this should be used > only > if you don't want to acquire locks during the read operation from the > cache. > > 3) use READ_COMMITTED isolation level instead of REPEATABLE_READ (default > one). However, the lock won't be acquired on the 'get' operation as in case > 2. > > -- > Denis > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Error-on-Transactions-with-Write-Behind-tp4736p4764.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
