Re: Big 7.4 items

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Big 7.4 items
Date: 2002-12-14 06:55:05
Message-ID: 3DFAD5C9.5070109@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com wrote:
>>It is asynchronous without the need of 2 phase commit. It is group
>>communication based and requires the group communication system to
>>guarantee total order. The tricky part is, that the local transaction
>>must be on hold until the own commit message comes back without a prior
>
>
> No, It holds until it's own Writeset comes back. Commits
> and then send a commit message on the simple channel, so
> commits don't wait for ordered writesets.
>
> Remember total order guarantees if no changes in front of
> the local changes conflict, the local changes can commit.

Do people have to be careful about how they use sequences, as they don't normally roll back?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

<snip>
> Darren

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2002-12-14 07:02:49 Re: Big 7.4 items
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2002-12-14 05:39:30 Re: Big 7.4 items