Re: 2-phase commit
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 2-phase commit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1065723448.1821.2288.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 2-phase commit (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: 2-phase commit
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 12:07, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 11:22:05AM -0400, Mike Mascari wrote: > > 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? > > I don't know. What I know is that someone showed up working on 2PC, > and got a frosty reception. I'm trying to learn what criteria would > make the work acceptable. For my purposes, the feature would be > really nice, so I'd hate to see the opportunity lost. If someone has > an idea even how 3PC might be implemented, I'd be happy to hear it. > Can you elaborate on "your purposes"? Do they fall into the "XA-compatibility" bit or the "Robustness in the face of network failure"? On the likely chance that 50% fall into 1 and the other into 2, can we accept a solution than doesn't address both? Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: