| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Phase Commit WAS: Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Date: | 2003-06-23 22:05:17 |
| Message-ID: | 1056405812.64205.19.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Perhaps the people on this list who are pushing 2PC could do the ground work?
- 2PC is better than a standard transaction when dealing with multiple
servers as it can recover in some circumstances (but not all).
- 2PC (XA support as described by the X/Open group) is the only
implementation of distributed transactions supported by many third party
components -- that I'm aware of -- to the point where it is a part of
the Java Spec on dealing with distributed transactions.
- 2PC isn't very good in a number of circumstances, as such PostgreSQL
should avoid its use when PostgreSQL has a choice in the matter -- like
communication with other PostgreSQL servers.
This is a case of learning to speak Japanese because all of the people
you want to talk with only speak Japanese. It simply doesn't matter how
good Esperanto is.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-23 22:21:07 | Re: [HACKERS] PlPython |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-06-23 21:59:48 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |