| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masaru Sugawara <rk73(at)sea(dot)plala(dot)or(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transactions through dblink_exec() |
| Date: | 2002-10-13 06:44:18 |
| Message-ID: | 3DA91642.2000202@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari wrote:
> How can dblink() possibly be used safely for non-readonly transactions
> without a full implementation of a two-phase commit protocol? What
> happens when the remote server issues the COMMIT and then the local
> server crashes?
>
It can't be used safely if you're trying to ensure a distributed transaction
either fails or commits. At least I can't think of a way without two-phase
commits implemented.
But depending on your scenario, just being sure that the remote transaction
fails or succeeds as a unit may be all you care about.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Barry Lind | 2002-10-13 08:41:39 | experiences with autocommit functionality in 7.3 |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-10-13 06:37:18 | Re: Transactions through dblink_exec() |