From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
Date: | 2003-10-09 16:07:18 |
Message-ID: | 20031009160718.GC14394@libertyrms.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 11:22:05AM -0400, Mike Mascari wrote:
> The implementation choosen depends upon the answer, does it not? Is
> there an implementation (e.g. 3PC) that can simulate 2PC behavior for
> interoperability purposes and satisfy both requirements?
I don't know. What I know is that someone showed up working on 2PC,
and got a frosty reception. I'm trying to learn what criteria would
make the work acceptable. For my purposes, the feature would be
really nice, so I'd hate to see the opportunity lost. If someone has
an idea even how 3PC might be implemented, I'd be happy to hear it.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-10-09 16:43:01 | Foreign key plan caching (too long!) |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-10-09 15:45:33 | Re: 2-phase commit |