Re: PostgreSQL-R

From: Darren Johnson <darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <VMIKHEEV(at)sectordata(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackets (E-mail)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-R
Date: 2002-12-22 01:58:58
Message-ID: 3E051C62.1000007@up.hrcoxmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
>
>
>Next, pg-r was originally based on 6.4, so what was changed for
>current pg versions when MV is used for CC? It seems that locking
>tuples via LockTable at Phase 1 is not required anymore, right?
>

We haven't put those hooks in yet, so the current version is master/slave.

>
>Upon receiving local WS in Phase 3 local transaction should just
>check that there are no conflicting locks from remote transactions
>in LockTable and can commit after that. Remote transactions will not
>see conflicts from local ones in LockTable but will notice them
>during execution and will be able to abort local transactions.
>(I hope I didn't miss something here.) Also it seems that we could
>perform Phases 2 & 3 periodically during transaction execution.
>This would make WS smaller and conflicts between long running
>transactions from different sites would be resoved faster.
>
>Comments?
>

Seems like a good idea to me, but we won't know for sure until we
implement the multi-
master hooks.

Thanks,

Darren

>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2002-12-22 04:14:39 Re: Resource management in 7.4
Previous Message Ryan Mahoney 2002-12-21 21:12:50 Re: plpgsql and index usage