Re: XA

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: XA
Date: 2005-09-30 08:59:07
Message-ID: 1128070747.19345.242.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 23:10 -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com (Josh Berkus) writes:
> > Chris,
> >
> >> Two phase commit is a prerequisite for doing distributed transactions,
> >> and XA is a particular standard to which the 2PC support does not, at
> >> this point, conform.
> >
> > Eh? I was under the impression that XA was implemented in the JDBC
> > layer, not in the backend.
>
> There was an JDBC-based *attempt* at an XA handler; it wasn't fully
> functional, which essentially means it wasn't really XA.
>
> When the 2PC discussion was going on, it definitely came up in the
> discussion that this was a prerequisite to doing XA properly. It
> might not be forcibly necessary in the strictest sense, but 2PC is
> certainly one of the normal means for synchronizing distributed
> transactions...

I didn't realise that the 2PC we have implemented was not XA.

That's bad news. To most people they are the same thing, so I foresee
some fairly poor feedback.

It is my understanding that an XA interface was required to interface
correctly with transaction managers. AFAIK XA is an interface that
JDBC/JTA provides a mapping for, but they are different things.

Who knows the full info on this?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

  • XA at 2005-09-28 03:10:53 from Chris Browne

Responses

  • Re: XA at 2005-09-30 15:23:44 from Joshua D. Drake
  • Re: XA at 2005-09-30 18:42:07 from Chris Browne

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-09-30 09:58:36 Re: Next version: putting the pedal down
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2005-09-30 08:44:09 Re: Time to start the PR machine