Re: Massively Parallel transactioning?

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Massively Parallel transactioning?
Date: 2010-08-19 12:41:57
Message-ID: 20100819124157.GA2243@samason.me.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 05:40:21AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 19 August 2010 01.32:06 Benjamin Smith wrote:
> > This way we can be sure that either all the databases are in synch, or
> > that we need to rollback the program patch/update.
>
> I guess this might be more a hack than a solution: do the updates in batches
> and use 2pc: first connect to batches of databases, but instead of commit,
> you "prepare to commit". Prepared commits like this are persistent accross
> connections, so you can come back later and commit or rollback.

Rather than being a hack, 2PC sounds like it's needed for correctness;
how do you handle the case of only some databases receiving the COMMIT
command otherwise?

--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-19 13:42:21 Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use
Previous Message darklow 2010-08-19 11:48:20 Re: FTS wildcard and custom ispell dictionary problem