From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Mikheev, Vadim'" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'dom(at)idealx(dot)com'" <dom(at)idealx(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | AW: Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd) |
Date: | 2001-01-24 09:19:36 |
Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633681D7@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 1. For 1st phase we'll place into log "prepared-to-commit" record
> and this phase will be accomplished after record is
> flushed on disk.
> At this point transaction may be committed at any time because of
> all its modifications are logged. But it still may be rolled back
> if this phase failed on other sites of distributed system.
1st phase will also need to do all the delayed constraint checks,
and all other work a commit currently does, that could possibly lead
to a transaction abort. The 2nd phase of 2phase commit is not
allowed to return an error, unless of course in case of catastrophe.
> 2. When all sites are prepared to commit we'll place "committed"
> record into log. No need to flush it because of in the event of
> crash for all "prepared" transactions recoverer will have to
> communicate other sites to know their statuses anyway.
>
> That's all! It is really hard to implement distributed lock- and
> communication- managers but there is no problem with logging two
> records instead of one. Period.
yup :-) Maybe this could even be raised to the SQL level,
so applications could use this ? I have not seen this elsewhere,
but why actually not ?
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank Joerdens | 2001-01-24 09:29:11 | Re: Looking for info on Solaris 7 (SPARC) specific considerations |
Previous Message | Samy Elashmawy | 2001-01-24 07:30:18 | Re: Re: GreatBridge RPMs (was: Re: question) |