> > This is wrong assumption. If
> >
> > 1st client executes UPDATE t SET a = 1 WHERE b = 2;
> > 2nd client executes UPDATE t SET a = 2 WHERE b = 2;
> >
> > at "the same time" you don't know in what order these
> > queries will be executed on two different servers (because
> > you can't control what transaction will lock record(s)
> > for update first).
>
> I guess we would need two phase commit in this case. Then it could be
> guaranteed.
>
I'm not sure 2PC would guarantee order here. There is
potential for a dead lock across system boundary in this
example. If the pre commit messages were sent at the same
time which server would lock the resource?
Darren
Есть вопросы? Напишите нам!
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
✖
By continuing to browse this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Go to Privacy Policy.