Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: vadim(at)krs(dot)ru (Vadim Mikheev)
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT
Date: 1998-12-13 03:58:30
Message-ID: 199812130358.WAA13310@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > while on the redolog, I've came across a little detail I'm in
> > doubt about. Currently it seems, that the 'C' response to the
> > frontend is sent before the transaction get's really
> > committed in the backend. So there is a little chance that
> > the backend dies between this response and the
> > CommitTransaction() call.
> >
> > Isn't that the wrong order? As a programmer I would assume,
> > that if I have positive response to COMMIT, I can forget my
> > local data because it made it safely into the database.
>
> Yes, this should be fixed...

Added to TODO:

* 'C' response returned to fontend before actual data committed

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-12-13 04:07:17 Re: [HACKERS] weird state after aborted transaction in pgsql 6.4
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-12-13 03:55:27 Re: [HACKERS] ecpg man page