| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-09-26 21:15:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1064610936.28889.113.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The first problem is the restart/rejoin problem. When a 2PC member
> goes away, it is supposed to come back with all its former locks and
> everything in place, so that it can know what to do. This is also
> extremely tricky, but I think the answer is sort of easy. A member
> which re-joins without crashing (that is, it has open transactions,
I think you may be confusing 2PC with replication.
PostgreSQLs 2PC implementation should follow enough of the XA rules to
play nice in a mixed environment where something else is managing the
transactions (application servers are becoming more common all the
time).
As far as inter-PostgreSQL replication / queries are concerned we can
choose whatever semantics we like -- just realize that they are 2
different problems.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-09-26 21:52:44 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-26 21:14:36 | Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql) |