From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication Ideas |
Date: | 2003-08-25 18:24:41 |
Message-ID: | 20030825182441.GB9597@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:06:22AM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >This is vaguely similar to Two Phase Commit, which is a sine qua
> >non of distributed transactions, which is the s.q.n. of multi-master
> >replication.
>
> I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, one of the problems with a
> standard 2-phase commit is that if one server goes down, the other
> masters cannot commit their transactions.
Before the discussion goes any further, have you read the work related
to Postgres-r? It's a substantially different animal from 2PC AFAIK.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Travers | 2003-08-25 18:36:20 | Re: Replication Ideas |
Previous Message | Brian Maguire | 2003-08-25 17:44:50 | table constraints and performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Travers | 2003-08-25 18:36:20 | Re: Replication Ideas |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-08-25 17:38:16 | Re: Replication Ideas |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Travers | 2003-08-25 18:36:20 | Re: Replication Ideas |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-08-25 17:38:16 | Re: Replication Ideas |