From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
Date: | 2003-09-26 18:32:29 |
Message-ID: | 20030926153102.W77053@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You're not considering the possibility of a transient communication
> >> failure.
>
> > Can't the master re-send the request after a timeout?
>
> Not "it can", but "it has to". The master *must* keep hold of that
> request forever (or until the slave responds, or until we reconfigure
> the system not to consider that slave valid anymore). Similarly, the
> slave cannot forget the maybe-committed transaction on pain of not being
> a valid slave anymore.
Hrmmmm ... is there no way of having part of the protocol being a message
sent back that its a valid/invalid slave? ie. slave has an uncommitted
transaction, never hears back from master to actually do the commit, so
after x-secs * y-retries any messages it does try to send to the master
have a bit flag set to 'invalid'?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-09-26 18:33:05 | Re: [GENERAL] Metapa - PostgreSQL/Linux clustering for BI |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-26 18:31:32 | Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql) |