Re: 2-phase commit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: 2-phase commit
Date
Msg-id 1064610936.28889.113.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 2-phase commit  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
Responses Re: 2-phase commit  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
List pgsql-hackers
> The first problem is the restart/rejoin problem.  When a 2PC member
> goes away, it is supposed to come back with all its former locks and
> everything in place, so that it can know what to do.  This is also
> extremely tricky, but I think the answer is sort of easy.  A member
> which re-joins without crashing (that is, it has open transactions,

I think you may be confusing 2PC with replication.

PostgreSQLs 2PC implementation should follow enough of the XA rules to
play nice in a mixed environment where something else is managing the
transactions (application servers are becoming more common all the
time).

As far as inter-PostgreSQL replication / queries are concerned we can
choose whatever semantics we like -- just realize that they are 2
different problems.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql)