| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-09-26 20:53:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1064609625.28889.89.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Patrick Welche wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:49:30PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > ...
> > > if we are talking two computers sitting next to each other on a switch,
> > > you'd expect those to be low ... but if you were talking about two
> > > seperate geographical locations (and yes, I realize you are adding lag to
> > > the mix with waiting for responses), you'd expect those #s to rise ...
> >
> > Which I thought was the whole point of using a group communication protocol
> > such as spread in postgresql-r. It seemed solved there...
>
> Right, but I think we want to try to do two-phase commit without spread.
> Spread seems overkill for this usage.
Out of curiosity, how does one use spread to accomplish 2PC? Isn't the
logic the Application Server would need to follow rather different with
a group communication based control than with XA / 2PC style
communication? How does one map to the other?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-09-26 20:56:31 | Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql) |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-09-26 20:50:27 | Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql) |