> I don't think it could have been said any better. There are a host of
> improvements on the standard 2PC protocol, including 3PC, multi-cast
> 2PC, and other variants both synchronous and asynchronous. But if
> PostgreSQL is going to work with XA, then it doesn't get to choose the
> TM or the protocol. The only relevance of this thread, as I see it, is
I'm no expert in this area, but XA seems to be the choice for Java based
Transaction Servers, so at very least the JDBC guys will want to have
the ability to fake XA.
> whether or not core will stomach an XA-compatible 2PC implementation
> in the backend. If not, then is Satoshi Nagayasu in vain? That was
No, it's not in vain to add 2PC (XA-compatible was his interest at the
time) into the backend.
What is debatable is whether the PostgreSQL folks will implement a
replication system based on it.
> what I "sensed" in the original thread 6 months ago, that the 2PC work
> being done by Satoshi Nagayasu was going to be allowed to die on the vine.
It is difficult work, but is no less useful than nested transactions
will be. A certain segment of the user-base will be jumping up and down
when they get them, myself included.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc