Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness
Date: 2005-05-27 03:09:28
Message-ID: 10379.1117163368@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> writes:
> I'm wondering what should happen at prepare time so that "my own cache"
> is correct.

Good point.  As far as the local caches are concerned, we probably have
to make it look like the transaction rolled back.  I think Heikki
already had code in there to send the right inval messages when the
prepared transaction ultimately commits ... but we'll have to check that
that sequence does the right things ...

> Do I need to send the inval messages to me?  Is this even
> possible?

inval.c is less than readable, isn't it :-(  But yes, and yes.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2005-05-27 03:10:26
Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-05-26 23:26:59
Subject: A 2 phase commit weirdness

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group