Re: Two-phase commit

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Two-phase commit
Date: 2004-10-06 23:06:52
Message-ID: 1097104012.31575.132.camel@home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 18:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> >> At the API level, I like the PREPARE/COMMIT/ROLLBACK statements, but I
> >> think you have missed a bet in that it needs to be possible to issue
> >> "COMMIT PREPARED gid" for the same gid several times without error.
>
> > Isn't this usually where the GTM would issue "recover" requests to
> > determine the state of the individual resources involved in the global
> > transaction, and then only commit/abort the resources that need it? (I
> > think the equivalent in Heikki's work is a SELECT of the
> > pg_prepared_xact view)
>
> Well, the question is how long must the individual databases retain
> state with which to answer "recover" requests. I don't like "forever",
> so I'm proposing that there should be an explicit command to say "you
> can forget about this gid".

Isn't this exactly what the "forget" request is for in the
XACoordinator? I think it's standard for Java at the very least.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-10-06 23:07:37 Re: Two-phase commit
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2004-10-06 22:59:54 Re: Two-phase commit

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-10-06 23:07:37 Re: Two-phase commit
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2004-10-06 22:59:54 Re: Two-phase commit