| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: two phase commit |
| Date: | 2007-07-23 19:29:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1185218946.17778.29.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 14:48 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Right. But there's a big difference between this case and many
> catastrophic problems, because it's entirely possible that the whole
> reason you were using 2PC was to increase reliability in the face of
> various disasters, including operator error. So you had _better_
> know which operator errors of this very feature are likely to cause
> catastrophes.
Fair enough. I'm not very opinionated about the referenced "feature/bug"
discussion, I just wanted to add some context to the problem you
mentioned (for the archives, if nothing else).
The way you worded your reply would scare anyone away from using 2PC at
all, and 2PC might be useful in Ben's case.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-07-23 19:32:55 | Re: two phase commit |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-07-23 19:04:27 | Re: query optimizer |