On 22 March 2018 at 13:02, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22/03/18 12:32, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>
>> On 22 March 2018 at 12:27, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/03/18 12:07, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think logically the transaction should be marked "rollback
>>>> only" inside the broker.  Any attempt to commit should result in error,
>>>> but
>>>> an attempt to rollback should succeed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What if a client tries to rollback a transaction involving the
>>> consumption
>>> of from a queue that has since been deleted and publishing of those
>>> messages
>>> to another queue (which has not been deleted)?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then the transaction will be rolled back and the related
>> consumption+publish will not proceed, which is what the client
>> apparently desires if trying to roll things back?
>>
>> (Not sure I understood the question..)
>
>
> I didn't ask the right question!
>
> One question is whether an explicit rollback would get an error (since
> actually the messages will not remain on the original queue as that has been
> deleted).
>

I don't think it should, rolling back the transaction has no impact on
how things end up really. The original message cant be consumed, the
next wont be produced, and nothing has 'gone wrong' with the
transaction itself.

> Another question is whether you would permit the client to commit such a
> transaction.
>

I think commit should fail, but I also dont think its a big deal if it
doesnt in most cases (but Rob's DLQ point is fair) given the end
state. At the end of the day, if queues are being deleted mid use,
neither side can independently deal with it easily and things are
likely to get a bit stuffed.

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to