| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two-phase commit |
| Date: | 2004-10-07 11:24:01 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.OSF.4.61.0410071417260.432862@kosh.hut.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Probably the next question is, do we want a database-side timeout on how long
> prepared txns can stay alive before being summarily rolled back?
That sounds very dangerous to me. You could end up breaking global
atomicity if some other resource in the global transaction committed.
The transaction monitor can do timeouts if necessary, and a super user has
to resolve the in-doubt transactions if the TM crashes non-recoverably.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco Colombo | 2004-10-07 11:53:17 | Re: database constraints |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2004-10-07 11:15:44 | Re: Two-phase commit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-10-07 12:51:35 | Re: pg_restore - added documentation |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2004-10-07 11:15:44 | Re: Two-phase commit |