Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>>Andrew Sullivan writes:
>>
>>>Does the proposal of allowing dbas to run that risk, provided there's a
>>>mechanism to tell them about it, satisfy the objection (assuming, of
>>>course, 2PC can be turned off)?
>>
>>Why would you spent time on implementing a mechanism whose ultimate
>>benefit is supposed to be increasing reliability and performance, when you
>>already realize that it will have to lock up at the slightest sight of
>>trouble? There are better mechanisms out there that you can use instead.
>
> If you want cross-server transactions, what other methods are there that
> are more reliable? It seems network unreliability is going to be a
> problem no matter what method you use.
What is the stated goal of distributed transactions in PostgreSQL?
1) XA-compatibility/interoperability
or
2) Robustness in the face of network failure
The implementation choosen depends upon the answer, does it not? Is
there an implementation (e.g. 3PC) that can simulate 2PC behavior for
interoperability purposes and satisfy both requirements?
Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com
