| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server? |
| Date: | 2020-01-22 15:22:21 |
| Message-ID: | 7114.1579706541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane schrieb am 22.01.2020 um 16:05:
>> Right. It's the XA transaction manager's job not to forget uncommitted
>> transactions. Reasoning as though no TM exists is not only not very
>> relevant, but it might lead you to put in features that actually
>> make the TM's job harder. In particular, a timeout (or any other
>> mechanism that leads PG to abort or commit a prepared transaction
>> of its own accord) does that.
> That's a fair point, but the reality is that not all XA transaction managers
> do a good job with that.
If you've got a crappy XA manager, you should get a better one, not
ask us to put in features that make PG unsafe to use with well-designed
XA managers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2020-01-22 15:51:06 | Re: allow online change primary_conninfo |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-22 15:18:27 | Re: Error message inconsistency |