| From: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-10-11 12:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20031011123624.GA97612@xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 09:37:53PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Why not apply the effort to something already done and compatibly
> licensed?
>
> This:
> http://dog.intalio.com/ots.html
>
> Appears to be a Berkeley style licensed:
> http://dog.intalio.com/license.html
>
> Transaction monitor.
I'd say this is complementary, not an alternative to 2PC implementation
issues.
The transaction monitor lives on the other side of the problem. 2PC is
needed in the database _so that_ the transaction monitor can do its job.
That said, having a 3-tier model is probably a good idea if distributed
transaction management is what we want. :-)
Jeroen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-10-11 12:58:25 | Re: compile warning |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-10-11 08:41:24 | Re: performance difference between pgsql and SQL |