Re: Big 7.4 items

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, kward@peerdirect.com, patrickm@redhat.com, darren@up.hrcoxmail.com, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>, jrnield@usol.com
Date: 2002-12-13T18:22:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Okay. But please keep in mind that a 2-phase commit implementation
> is used for more than just replication. Any distributed TX will
> require a 2PC protocol. As an example, for the DBLINK implementation
> to ultimately be transaction safe (at least amongst multiple
> PostgreSQL installations), the players in the distributed
> transaction must all be participants in a 2PC exchange. And a
> participant whose communications link is dropped needs to be
> able to recover by asking the coordinator whether or not to
> complete or abort the distributed TX. I am 100% ignorant of the
> distributed TX standard Tom referenced earlier, but I'd guess
> there might be an assumption of 2PC support in the implementation.
> In other words, I think we still need 2PC, regardless of the
> method of replication. And if  Satoshi Nagayasu has an implementation
> ready, why not investigate its possibilities?

This is a good point.  I don't want to push Postgres-R as our solution. 
Rather, I have looked at both and like Postgres-R, but others need to
look at both and decide so we are all in agreement when we move forward.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073