| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD'" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, "'Andrew Sullivan'" <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 2-phase commit |
| Date: | 2003-09-29 04:39:56 |
| Message-ID: | 3F77B79C.5DC90705@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > The simplest senario(though there could be varations) is
>
> > [At participant(master)'s side]
> > Because the commit operations is done, does nothing.
>
> > [At coordinator(slave)' side]
> > 1) After a while
> > 2) re-establish the communication path between the
> > partcipant(master)'s TM.
> > 3) resend the "commit requeset" to the participant's TM.
> > 1)2)3) would be repeated until the coordinator receives
> > the "commit ok" message from the partcipant.
>
> [ scratches head ] I think you are using the terms "master" and "slave"
> oppositely than I would.
Oops my mistake, sorry.
But is it 2-phase commit protocol in the first place ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-29 04:43:28 | pg_dump no longer honors --no-reconnect |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-09-29 04:35:02 | pg_get_ruledef and extra line breaks |