Re: PostgreSQL-R
darren@up.hrcoxmail.com
From: Darren Johnson <darren@up.hrcoxmail.com>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <VMIKHEEV@sectordata.com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackets (E-mail)" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-12-22T01:58:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > >Next, pg-r was originally based on 6.4, so what was changed for >current pg versions when MV is used for CC? It seems that locking >tuples via LockTable at Phase 1 is not required anymore, right? > We haven't put those hooks in yet, so the current version is master/slave. > >Upon receiving local WS in Phase 3 local transaction should just >check that there are no conflicting locks from remote transactions >in LockTable and can commit after that. Remote transactions will not >see conflicts from local ones in LockTable but will notice them >during execution and will be able to abort local transactions. >(I hope I didn't miss something here.) Also it seems that we could >perform Phases 2 & 3 periodically during transaction execution. >This would make WS smaller and conflicts between long running >transactions from different sites would be resoved faster. > >Comments? > Seems like a good idea to me, but we won't know for sure until we implement the multi- master hooks. Thanks, Darren > > >