From: | Darren Johnson <darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <VMIKHEEV(at)sectordata(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackets (E-mail)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL-R |
Date: | 2002-12-22 01:58:58 |
Message-ID: | 3E051C62.1000007@up.hrcoxmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
>
>Next, pg-r was originally based on 6.4, so what was changed for
>current pg versions when MV is used for CC? It seems that locking
>tuples via LockTable at Phase 1 is not required anymore, right?
>
We haven't put those hooks in yet, so the current version is master/slave.
>
>Upon receiving local WS in Phase 3 local transaction should just
>check that there are no conflicting locks from remote transactions
>in LockTable and can commit after that. Remote transactions will not
>see conflicts from local ones in LockTable but will notice them
>during execution and will be able to abort local transactions.
>(I hope I didn't miss something here.) Also it seems that we could
>perform Phases 2 & 3 periodically during transaction execution.
>This would make WS smaller and conflicts between long running
>transactions from different sites would be resoved faster.
>
>Comments?
>
Seems like a good idea to me, but we won't know for sure until we
implement the multi-
master hooks.
Thanks,
Darren
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-12-22 04:14:39 | Re: Resource management in 7.4 |
Previous Message | Ryan Mahoney | 2002-12-21 21:12:50 | Re: plpgsql and index usage |