From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSI atomic commit |
Date: | 2011-07-07 20:48:55 |
Message-ID: | 2648.1310071735@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Kevin and Dan also pointed out that a 2PC transaction can stay in
> prepared state for a long time, and we could optimize that by setting
> prepareSeqNo only at the final COMMIT PREPARED. I objected to that, for
> the reason that it's currently very convenient for testing purposes that
> a transaction prepared with PREPARE TRANSACTION is in the exact same
> state as regular transaction that's going through regular commit processing.
Seems to me there's a more fundamental reason not to do that, which is
that once you've done PREPARE it is no longer legitimate to decide to
roll back the transaction to get out of a "dangerous" structure --- ie,
you have to target one of the other xacts involved instead. Shouldn't
the assignment of a prepareSeqNo correspond to the point where the xact
is no longer a target for SSI rollback?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-07-07 20:55:21 | -Wformat-zero-length |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-07 20:37:15 | Re: SSI atomic commit |