From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness |
Date: | 2005-05-31 06:09:56 |
Message-ID: | 8696.1117519796@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> writes:
> But at awakening, the user will get this:
> ERROR: relation 66002 deleted while still in use
> This is ugly -- I don't think there is a way to get out of it.
There had better be a way, since (I suppose) the ERROR is preventing the
commit from succeeding ...
> Unrelated question: is it intended that the prepared transactions are
> visible cross-database through pg_prepared_xacts?
That is a good question. Can a backend running in a different database
execute the COMMIT (or ROLLBACK)? Offhand I'd bet that will not work,
which suggests we'd better make the view per-database. [ thinks a bit
more... ] We might be able to make it work, but there seems like a lot
of potential for bugs/fragility there. Might be best to take the narrow
definition to start with.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2005-05-31 09:49:20 | Re: Backslash handling in strings |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-05-31 06:06:55 | Re: Consumer-grade vs enterprise-grade disk drives |