Re: Big 7.4 items
От | Mike Mascari |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Big 7.4 items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 007f01c2a2d1$1859d440$0102a8c0@mascari.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Big 7.4 items (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Big 7.4 items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Okay. But please keep in mind that a 2-phase commit implementation is used for more than just replication. Any distributedTX will require a 2PC protocol. As an example, for the DBLINK implementation to ultimately be transaction safe(at least amongst multiple PostgreSQL installations), the players in the distributed transaction must all be participantsin a 2PC exchange. And a participant whose communications link is dropped needs to be able to recover by askingthe coordinator whether or not to complete or abort the distributed TX. I am 100% ignorant of the distributed TX standardTom referenced earlier, but I'd guess there might be an assumption of 2PC support in the implementation. In otherwords, I think we still need 2PC, regardless of the method of replication. And if Satoshi Nagayasu has an implementationready, why not investigate its possibilities? Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > Mike Mascari wrote: > > What about distributed TX support: > OK, yes, that is Satoshi's 2-phase commit implementation. I will > address 2-phase commit vs Postgres-R in my next email about spread.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: