Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness
Date: 2005-05-27 03:09:28
Message-ID: 10379.1117163368@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> writes:
> I'm wondering what should happen at prepare time so that "my own cache"
> is correct.

Good point. As far as the local caches are concerned, we probably have
to make it look like the transaction rolled back. I think Heikki
already had code in there to send the right inval messages when the
prepared transaction ultimately commits ... but we'll have to check that
that sequence does the right things ...

> Do I need to send the inval messages to me? Is this even
> possible?

inval.c is less than readable, isn't it :-( But yes, and yes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qingqing Zhou 2005-05-27 03:10:26 Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-05-26 23:26:59 A 2 phase commit weirdness