>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Bruce> Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > The question >> was whether 2PC is
useful. The question wasn't if an > >> unreliable 2PC was useful. >> >> My question is whether there is such a
thingas reliable 2PC. >> I sure don't see how you build that.
Bruce> Other databases use 2PC --- are you saying none of them are Bruce> reliable?
And they use them for both federated read/write (what you refer to as
distributed access through dblink) and for clustered configurations.
I'm not sure if I understand Tom's beef - I think he is concerned
about what happens if a subordinate does not respond to a prepare
message. I would assume that the co-ordinator would not let the commit
go through until it has received confirmations from every
subordinate. The application's commit will remain blocked against the
co-ordinator when this takes place.
That said, I agree that 2PC (and variants) is rather heavy weight when
in widely distributed configurations.
(Although I guess in practice, many people use Presumed Abort and not
vanilla 2PC as PA results in fewer log flushes for read-only
transactions.)
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
