Re: PostgreSQL-R - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Darren Johnson
Subject Re: PostgreSQL-R
Date
Msg-id 3E051C62.1000007@up.hrcoxmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to PostgreSQL-R  ("Mikheev, Vadim" <VMIKHEEV@sectordata.com>)
List 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

>
>
>




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ryan Mahoney
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql and index usage
Next
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: Resource management in 7.4