Re: 2-phase commit

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
Date: 2003-09-29 16:39:30
Message-ID: 20030929163930.GF23542@libertyrms.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:36:36AM +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
> What do commercial databases do about 2PC or other multi-master solutions?
> You've done a good job of convincing me that it's unreliable no matter what
> (through your posts on this topic over a long time). However, I would think
> that something like Oracle or DB2 have some kind of answer for
> multi-master, and I'm curious what it is. If they don't, is it reasonable
> to make a test case that leaves their database inconsistent or hanging?

Most real replication systems are not doing 2PC. For me, 2PC-based
replication is not real interesting anyway, because the point of
multi-master replication is often at least partly speed, and 2PC is
nothing if not a good way to make sure that every database is at
least as slow as the slowest node.

But 2PC is important for application-server-based, XA-type work, and
for heterogenous databases. Both of those would be real nice
features to support.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-29 16:39:34 Re: 2-phase commit
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-09-29 16:34:49 Re: 2-phase commit