Re: XA support (distributed transactions)
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: XA support (distributed transactions) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4561ED1C.2080903@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | XA support (distributed transactions) (Danny Milosavljevic <danny.milosavljevic@fabalabs.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: XA support (distributed transactions)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > Hi, > > We (Fabalabs) are looking into adding XA support (distributed > transactions) to Postgresql. > > I have been searching the web and came up with > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Postgres-XA-support-t226681.html#a633000 > which cites some design difficulty. That mail discusses problems we had trying to implement XADataSource in the JDBC driver. Things have evolved from that, and we have a working solution that works. It doesn't support some of the advanced features, suspend/resume and transaction interleaving in particular, but support for those is rather flaky in other DBMS's as well, and it's not a problem in practice because J2EE application server implementations work well without them. Please read all the more recent discussions on pgsql-jdbc mailing list on the subject if you want to contribute. > It is the case that the X/Open XA standard mandates "transaction > branches" that are managed by calls to xa_start()/xa_end() in an > out-of-band manner (via some kind of exported C VMT, sigh), in parallel > to "native resource manager access" and so Michael Allman's objections > (see link above) are correct when one assumes one single persistent > postgresql connection per database prevailing, and a transaction manager > that arbitrarily commands when to start/end transaction branches. > > What is the current status? As I said above, we have working solution for the JDBC driver. I'm not sure if what we have would suffice for a native C XA client library. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: