| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two-phase commit issues |
| Date: | 2005-05-20 16:34:53 |
| Message-ID: | 200505201634.j4KGYre29742@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am a little confused by this. How does two-phase commit add extra
> > requirements on crash recovery?
>
> Uh, that's more or less the entire *POINT*. Once an open transaction is
> prepared, it's supposed to survive a server crash.
Wow. This is much more than I thought we were going to do. I thought
if something failed after the prepare we were just going to inform the
administrator and give up. Becuase you are writing status file to the
disk, it seems you are trying to recover from a crash and roll forward.
What cases would we actually fail to recover from a crash after a
PREPARE?
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2005-05-20 16:46:31 | Re: Two-phase commit issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-20 16:20:38 | Re: [GENERAL] Image storage questions |