| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-09-29 20:28:40 |
| Message-ID: | 1064867320.61134.116.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 15:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Manfred Spraul writes:
>
> > Ok. Lets assume one coordinator, two partitipants.
> > Global commit send to both by coordinator. One replies with ok, the
> > other one remains silent.
> > What should the coordinator do? It can't fail the transaction - the
> > first partitipant has commited its part. It can't complete the
> > transaction, because the ok from the 2nd partitipant is still outstanding.
>
> If a participant doesn't reply in an orderly fashion (say, after timeout),
> it just gets kicked out of the whole mechanism. That isn't the
> interesting part. The interesting part is what happens when the
> coordinator fails.
The hot-standby coordinator picks up where the first one left off. Just
like when the participant fails the hot-standby for that participant
steps up to the plate.
For the application server side in Java, I believe the standard is OTS
(Object Transaction Service).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-09-29 23:50:20 | Can't find some US Press Contacts |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-09-29 19:55:45 | Re: 2-phase commit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-09-29 20:35:04 | Re: 7.4 status |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-09-29 20:19:22 | Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta) |