From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: two phase commit |
Date: | 2007-07-19 22:49:02 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0707191546360.27105@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Er, right.... I guess I should have asked if it's more likely to commit a
running transaction than a prepared one.... and it sounds like the answer
is "no". :)
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm reading the description of PREPARE TRANSACTION, and I see this:
>> "...its state is fully stored on disk, and there is a very high
>> probability that it can be committed successfully..."
>
>> What corner case reduces 2pc from "guaranteed" to "very high probability"?
>
> Well, for example, someone drops a nuke on your data center ...
>
> Barring hardware failure, OS failure, or irrecoverable database crash,
> the only condition I can think of that would prevent COMMIT PREPARED
> from succeeding is out-of-disk-space on the WAL drive. Which is a PANIC
> condition anyway, and thus might be classed with database crashes,
> although it's not irrecoverable so long as the admin can free up some
> disk space.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-19 23:13:34 | Re: two phase commit |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-07-19 22:42:50 | Re: two phase commit |