From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Database replication... - Mission Critica |
Date: | 2002-11-07 15:03:19 |
Message-ID: | 3DCACE0F.17657.53E6D50@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 4 Nov 2002 at 12:23, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > My presumption would be that if you initialize 2 databases to
> > a known identical start, have all the same triggers and rules
> > on both, then send all queries to both databases, you will
> > have 2 identical databases at the end.
>
> This is wrong assumption. If
>
> 1st client executes UPDATE t SET a = 1 WHERE b = 2;
> 2nd client executes UPDATE t SET a = 2 WHERE b = 2;
>
> at "the same time" you don't know in what order these
> queries will be executed on two different servers (because
> you can't control what transaction will lock record(s)
> for update first).
I guess we would need two phase commit in this case. Then it could be
guaranteed.
Bye
Shridhar
--
There comes to all races an ultimate crisis which you have yet to face.... One
day our minds became so powerful we dared think of ourselves as gods. --
Sargon, "Return to Tomorrow", stardate 4768.3
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-07 15:05:28 | Re: Failed to initialize lc_messages 7.3b5 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-07 14:55:29 | Re: [SQL] Problem: Referential Integrity Constraints lost |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-07 15:05:28 | Re: Failed to initialize lc_messages 7.3b5 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-07 14:55:29 | Re: [SQL] Problem: Referential Integrity Constraints lost |