Re: 2-phase commit

On Saturday 27 September 2003 15:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
[snip]
> > I might be (well, am actually) a bit out of my depth here, but surely
> > what happens is if you have machines A,B,C and *any* of them thinks
> > machine C has a problem then it does. If C can still communicate with the
> > others then it is told to reinitialise/go away/start the sirens. If C
> > can't communicate then it's all a bit academic.
> >
[snip]
>
> I have been thinking it might be time to start allowing external
> programs to be called when certain events occur that require
> administrative attention --- this would be a good case for that.
> Administrators could configure shell scripts to be run when the network
> connection fails or servers drop off the network, alerting them to the
> problem. Throwing things into the server logs isn't _active_ enough.

Actually, from the discussion I'd assumed there was some sort of plug-in
"policy daemon" that was making decisions when things went wrong. Given the
different scenarios 2 phase-commit will be used in, one size is unlikely to
fit all.

The idea of a more general system is _very_ interesting. I know Wietse Venema
has decided to provide an external "policy" interface for his Postfix
mailserver, precisely because he wants to keep the core system fairly clean.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd