Re: 2-phase commit

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
Date: 2003-10-09 14:42:03
Message-ID: 200310091442.h99Eg3R29404@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan writes:
>
> > Does the proposal of allowing dbas to run that risk, provided there's a
> > mechanism to tell them about it, satisfy the objection (assuming, of
> > course, 2PC can be turned off)?
>
> Why would you spent time on implementing a mechanism whose ultimate
> benefit is supposed to be increasing reliability and performance, when you
> already realize that it will have to lock up at the slightest sight of
> trouble? There are better mechanisms out there that you can use instead.

If you want cross-server transactions, what other methods are there that
are more reliable? It seems network unreliability is going to be a
problem no matter what method you use.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-09 14:45:32 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/template bsdi freebsd netbsd ...
Previous Message Neil Conway 2003-10-09 14:40:41 Re: pgsql-server/src/template bsdi freebsd netbsd ...