[rabbitmq-discuss] is anybody using tx?

Alessandro Ranellucci aar at cpan.org
Mon Jun 27 18:29:19 BST 2011

On 27-06-2011 at 17:02, Matthias Radestock wrote:

  >The predominant application of tx we have seen in the past is 
as a
  >means for the client to ensure that the server has accepted
  >responsibility for a published message (or, conversely, be 
told of any
  >failure to do so). Publisher confirms, which we introduced in 2.3.0,
  >handle this much better. I suppose there might be still be 
users that
  >haven't switched from 'tx' to 'confirm'. If so I'd like to 
know what
  >is holding you back.


I have daemons processing external events and writing to a RDMS, 
filesystem and RabbitMQ. If something fails -sort of a 
distributed transaction- I can just rollback everything on RabbitMQ.

Plus, what Tim Fox said about atomicity.


More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list