From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Andrew Sullivan" <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
Date: | 2003-09-29 14:32:43 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4962023@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't think there is any way to handle cases where the master or slave
> just disappears. The other machine isn't under the server's control, so
> it has no way of it knowing. I think we have to allow the administrator
> to set a timeout, or ask to wait indefinately, and allow them to call an
> external program to record the event or notify administrators.
> Multi-master replication has the same issues.
Needs to wait indefinitely, a timeout is not acceptable since it leads to
inconsistent data. Human (or monitoring software) intervention is needed
if they can't reach each other in a reasonable time.
I think this needs to be kept dumb. Different sorts of use cases will simply
need different answers to resolve in-doubt transactions. What is needed is an
interface that allows listing and commit/rollback of in-doubt transactions
(preferably from a newly started client, or a direct command for the postmaster).
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2003-09-29 14:41:11 | Re: 2-phase commit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-29 14:30:40 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |