Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Non-transactional Java-based migrations support #2164

Closed
axelfontaine opened this issue Oct 4, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Non-transactional Java-based migrations support #2164

axelfontaine opened this issue Oct 4, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@axelfontaine
Copy link
Contributor

@axelfontaine axelfontaine commented Oct 4, 2018

Until now JdbcMigration and SpringJdbcMigration implementations could only execute within a transaction. Flyway 5.2.0 introduces a new JavaMigration type which supersedes both existing ones and additionally can be configured to optionally execute without a transaction.

@axelfontaine axelfontaine added this to the Flyway 5.2.0 milestone Oct 4, 2018
axelfontaine added a commit to flyway/flywaydb.org that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2018
@axelfontaine axelfontaine changed the title Non-transactiona Java-based migrations support Non-transactional Java-based migrations support Oct 4, 2018
@geoffreywiseman
Copy link

@geoffreywiseman geoffreywiseman commented Jan 28, 2019

Is there documentation describing the best upgrade approach for people with SpringJdbcMigrations? I've seen some examples like this, using a SingleConnectionDataSource:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53722392/flyway-how-to-replace-deprecated-springjdbcmigration-without-getting-flywayexc

From the looks of things that's pretty close to what Flyway does internally.

I'm just trying to understand the upgrade path for people who have some SpringJdbcMigration descendants, and what the recommendation is on how to modify those classes. Is it just that Spring JdbcTemplate support is gone, isn't returning, there will be no guidance and people can do whatever they want to bridge that gap? Or is it something else -- something that's coming, or something that I haven't found?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.