| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Date: | 2003-06-23 05:03:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20030623020303.H95856@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> I'm not sure if I understand Tom's beef - I think he is concerned about
> what happens if a subordinate does not respond to a prepare message. I
> would assume that the co-ordinator would not let the commit go through
> until it has received confirmations from every subordinate. The
> application's commit will remain blocked against the co-ordinator when
> this takes place.
Wouldn't 2PC have some sort of 'heartbeat' between the co-ordinator and
subordinate? Like, if you had multiple subordinates and one crashed, the
co-ordinator would have to know that and be able to continue on, no?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-06-23 05:06:16 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-06-23 05:01:52 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |