Re: Question concerning XTM (eXtensible Transaction Manager API)

<p dir="ltr"><br /> > I think the general idea is that if Commit is WAL logged, then the<br /> > operation is
consideredto committed on local node and commit should<br /> > happen on any node, only once prepare from all nodes
issuccessful.<br /> > And after that transaction is not supposed to abort.  But I think you are<br /> > trying to
optimizethe DTM in some way to not follow that kind of protocol.<br /> > By the way, how will arbiter does the
recoveryin a scenario where it<br /> > crashes, won't it need to contact all nodes for the status of in-progress
or<br/> > prepared transactions? <br /> > I think it would be better if more detailed design of DTM with respect
to<br/> > transaction management and recovery could be updated on wiki for having<br /> > discussion on this
topic. I have seen that you have already updated many<br /> > details of the system, but still the complete picture
ofDTM is not clear.<br /><p dir="ltr">I agree.<p dir="ltr">I have not been following this discussion but from what I
haveread above I think the recovery model in this design is broken. You have to follow some protocol, whichever you
choose.<pdir="ltr">I think you can try using something like Paxos,  if you are looking at a higher reliable model but
don'twant the overhead of 3PC.