[rabbitmq-discuss] publishing inside a transaction before acking

[vishnu]

aha thanks. I sorta get it now

why does rabbitmq implicitly start a transaction after a commit. Does this
mean after a commit every single operation now has to be transactional?
thanks

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Michael Bridgen <mikeb at rabbitmq.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:59 PM, vishnu <pathsny at gmail.com <mailto:
>> pathsny at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    well actually we're doing
>>    basic.consume
>>
>>    some stuff
>>    tx.select
>>    basic.publish
>>    tx.commit
>>
>>    some stuff
>>    basic.ack
>>
>>    currently, we're  trying to make sure the publish is inside a
>>    transaction.
>>
>
> Right, that fits the first pattern.  You will want to move the ack inside
> the transaction.  Then the ack of the old incoming message will happen
> atomically with publishing the outgoing message, and you won't see a
> published outgoing message along with an unacked incoming message.
>
>
>     basic.consume
>
>     some stuff
>     tx.select
>     basic.publish
>
>     some stuff
>     basic.ack
>     tx.commit
>
>
> Michael.
>
>     On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Michael Bridgen <mikeb at rabbitmq.com
>>    <mailto:mikeb at rabbitmq.com>> wrote:
>>
>>        vishnu wrote:
>>         > we have scenarios where we pick up a message at a time,
>>        perform a bunch
>>         > of operations, publish a new message and then ack the message
>>        we just
>>         > picked up. Recently we have started to publish the new
>>        message inside a
>>         > transaction since this guarantees that the message is
>>        persisted (it's a
>>         > persistent message), since we want to minimize the odds of
>>        message loss.
>>         > However, we have started to notice that the original message
>>        we pick up
>>         > is marked as unacknowledged after we complete our process. Is
>>        there
>>         > something fundamentally wrong in what we're doing, or is our
>>        approach
>>         > correct?
>>
>>        The approach is correct.  What order are you doing things in?
>>        Transactions are implicitly started immediately after a commit or
>>        rollback, and acknowledgements are transactional, so if you're
>>        committing after the publish but before the ack --
>>
>>        basic.publish(new_message)
>>        tx.commit()
>>        basic.ack(old_message)
>>
>>        the state at this point is a published message, and an uncommitted
>>        transaction with the ack.  If you do this:
>>
>>        basic.publish(new_message)
>>        basic.ack(old_message)
>>        tx.commit()
>>
>>        then you'll have atomically acked the old message and published
>>        the new
>>        one; which is, I believe, what you want.
>>
>>
>>        Michael.
>>
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>>        rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>>        <mailto:rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com>
>>
>>
>> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20100519/612554cb/attachment.htm