| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |
| Date: | 2014-08-19 10:18:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HOJosvsa8cYR2BDcz-W3p9Z8VmQLtuVuWKYa8H5xOow2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> There's plenty of agreement on "not a GUC" - but what about alternatives?
It could be a new protocol message. Currently there are no transaction
oriented protocol messages (other than the "transaction status" in
ReadyForQuery). But would it not make sense to have TransactionBegin,
TransactionCommit, and TransactionAbort in the protocol? Would that
make it easier for the client-side failover to keep track of what
transactions are pending or committed and need to be verified after a
failover?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-08-19 10:21:39 | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2014-08-19 10:02:57 | Re: PoC: Partial sort |