Re: 2-phase commit
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Patrick Welche <prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-09-26T17:58:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Patrick Welche wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:49:30PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > ... > > if we are talking two computers sitting next to each other on a switch, > > you'd expect those to be low ... but if you were talking about two > > seperate geographical locations (and yes, I realize you are adding lag to > > the mix with waiting for responses), you'd expect those #s to rise ... > > Which I thought was the whole point of using a group communication protocol > such as spread in postgresql-r. It seemed solved there... Right, but I think we want to try to do two-phase commit without spread. Spread seems overkill for this usage. -- 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