Re: 2-phase commit

From: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
Date: 2003-09-28 18:58:24
Message-ID: 20030928185822.GE6073@filer
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
> > Actually, all that's really necessary is the ability to call a stored
> > procedure when some event occurs. The stored procedure can take it from
> > there, and since it can be written in C it can do anything the postgres
> > user can do (for good or for ill, of course).
>
> But the postmaster doesn't connect to any database, and in a serious
> failure, might not be able to start one.

Ah, true. But I figured that in the context of 2PC and replication that
most of the associated failures were likely to occur in an active
backend or something equivalent, where a stored procedure was likely to
be accessible.

But yes, you certainly want to account for failures where the database
itself is unavailable. So I guess my original comment isn't strictly
true. :-)

--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2003-09-28 19:03:43 Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-28 18:56:03 Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)