Re: Replication Ideas

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)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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