| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-10-10 00:53:46 |
| Message-ID: | 200310100053.h9A0rkl23681@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Yes. I don't think that 2PC is a solution for robustness in face of
> > network failure. It's too slow, to begin with. Some sort of
> > multi-master system is very desirable for network failures, &c., but
> > I don't think anybody does active/hot standby with 2PC any more; the
> > performance is too bad.
>
> I'm tired of this kind of "2PC is too slow" arguments. I think
> Satoshi, the only guy who made a trial implementation of 2PC for
> PostgreSQL, has already showed that 2PC is not that slow.
Agreed. Let's get it into 7.5 and see it in action. If we need to
adjust it, we can, but right now, we need something for distributed
transactions, and this seems like the logical direction.
--
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 | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-10-10 01:00:10 | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2003-10-10 00:46:35 | Re: 2-phase commit |