| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-09-27 12:13:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20030927091156.F711@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> >> ... You can make this work, but the resource costs
> >> are steep.
>
> > So, after 'n' seconds of waiting, we abandon the slave and the slave
> > abandons the master.
>
> [itch...] But you surely cannot guarantee that the slave and the master
> time out at exactly the same femtosecond. What happens when the comm
> link comes back online just when one has timed out and the other not?
> (Hint: in either order, it ain't good.
I think it was Andrew that suggested it ... when the slave timesout, it
should "trigger" a READ ONLY mode on the slave, so that when/if the master
tries to start to talk to it, it can't ...
As for the master itself, it should be smart enough that if it times out,
it knows to actually abandom the slave and not continue to try ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlg7 | 2003-09-27 12:43:53 | Re: PL contribution guidelines? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-09-27 10:08:20 | Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql) |