| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-09-29 19:55:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0309292153500.24925-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Manfred Spraul writes:
> Ok. Lets assume one coordinator, two partitipants.
> Global commit send to both by coordinator. One replies with ok, the
> other one remains silent.
> What should the coordinator do? It can't fail the transaction - the
> first partitipant has commited its part. It can't complete the
> transaction, because the ok from the 2nd partitipant is still outstanding.
If a participant doesn't reply in an orderly fashion (say, after timeout),
it just gets kicked out of the whole mechanism. That isn't the
interesting part. The interesting part is what happens when the
coordinator fails.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-09-29 20:28:40 | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Previous Message | Manfred Spraul | 2003-09-29 19:35:26 | Re: 2-phase commit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-29 20:04:10 | Re: 7.4 status |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-29 19:49:08 | Re: 7.4 status |