This isn't some sort of plan to make me look at SwiftMQ is it? ;-)
James.Strachan wrote:
This looks like the new SQL for the exclusive locks doesn't work for
SQL Server. (For more background see....
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jdbc-master-slave.htmlWe are basically doing a 'SELECT * FROM ACTIVEMQ_LOCK FOR UPDATE"
which doesn't seem to be allowed for SQL Server despite being SQL 92
AFAIK..
I wonder if there's some way to refactor the SQL to make it work
nicely on SQL Server - or we could maybe allow the exclusive lock to
be disabled.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
