| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-10-10 01:00:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20031009215935.S28590@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Yes. I don't think that 2PC is a solution for robustness in face of
> > network failure. It's too slow, to begin with. Some sort of
> > multi-master system is very desirable for network failures, &c., but
> > I don't think anybody does active/hot standby with 2PC any more; the
> > performance is too bad.
>
> I'm tired of this kind of "2PC is too slow" arguments. I think
> Satoshi, the only guy who made a trial implementation of 2PC for
> PostgreSQL, has already showed that 2PC is not that slow.
Where does Satoshi's implementation sit right now? Will it patch to v7.4?
Can it provide us with a base to work from, or is it complete?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-10 01:39:13 | Re: [HACKERS] initdb |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-10 00:53:46 | Re: 2-phase commit |