From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Big 7.4 items |
Date: | 2002-12-13 21:19:32 |
Message-ID: | 200212132119.gBDLJWf07970@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com wrote:
> > It is asynchronous without the need of 2 phase commit. It is group
> > communication based and requires the group communication system to
> > guarantee total order. The tricky part is, that the local transaction
> > must be on hold until the own commit message comes back without a prior
>
> No, It holds until it's own Writeset comes back. Commits
> and then send a commit message on the simple channel, so
> commits don't wait for ordered writesets.
Darren, can you clarify this? Why does it send that message? How does
it allow commits not to wait for ordered writesets?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-12-13 21:31:51 | Re: Big 7.4 items |
Previous Message | darren | 2002-12-13 21:18:01 | Re: Big 7.4 items |