Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 2-phase commit

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>,"Andrew Sullivan" <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
Date: 2003-09-29 14:32:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I don't think there is any way to handle cases where the master or slave
> just disappears.  The other machine isn't under the server's control, so
> it has no way of it knowing. I think we have to allow the administrator
> to set a timeout, or ask to wait indefinately, and allow them to call an
> external program to record the event or notify administrators.
> Multi-master replication has the same issues.

Needs to wait indefinitely, a timeout is not acceptable since it leads to 
inconsistent data. Human (or monitoring software) intervention is needed
if they can't reach each other in a reasonable time.

I think this needs to be kept dumb. Different sorts of use cases will simply  
need different answers to resolve in-doubt transactions. What is needed is an
interface that allows listing and commit/rollback of in-doubt transactions 
(preferably from a newly started client, or a direct command for the postmaster).


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SDDate: 2003-09-29 14:41:11
Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-29 14:30:40
Subject: Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group