Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 14918.1117206726@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
| Ответы |
Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> Looking at the sequence, at least the relcache init file stuff looks if
> not broken at least a bit heavy-handed...
I was planning to change that ;-) ... using separate 2PC action records
for the relcache init file actions would make it much better.
> Now consider this scenario:
> backend A: Do updates that cause an init file invalidation
> backend A: Commit begins
> backend A: unlink init file
> backend B starts and recreates init file
> backend A: send inval message
> backend C starts and reads the now stale init file
No problem, because C will receive A's inval messages after that.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: