From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Undisclosed(dot)Recipients: ; |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Two-phase commit issues |
Date: | 2005-05-21 02:37:39 |
Message-ID: | 200505201937.39738.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> > [ Shrug... ] I remain of the opinion that 2PC is a solution in search
> > of a problem, because it does not solve the single point of failure
> > issue (just moves same from the database to the 2PC controller).
> > But some people want it anyway, and they aren't going to be satisfied
> > that we are an "enterprise grade" database until we can check off this
> > particular bullet point. As long as the implementation doesn't impose
> > any significant costs when not being used (which AFAICS Heikki's method
> > doesn't), I think we gotta hold our noses and do it.
2PC is a key to supporting 3rd-party replication tools, like C-JDBC. And is
useful for some other use cases, like slow-WAN-based financial transactions.
We know you don't like it, Tom. ;-)
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-21 02:41:44 | Re: patches for items from TODO list |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-21 02:30:51 | Re: patches for items from TODO list |