Re: XA
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: XA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1128070747.19345.242.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | XA (Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: XA
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 23:10 -0400, Chris Browne wrote: > josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes: > > Chris, > > > >> Two phase commit is a prerequisite for doing distributed transactions, > >> and XA is a particular standard to which the 2PC support does not, at > >> this point, conform. > > > > Eh? I was under the impression that XA was implemented in the JDBC > > layer, not in the backend. > > There was an JDBC-based *attempt* at an XA handler; it wasn't fully > functional, which essentially means it wasn't really XA. > > When the 2PC discussion was going on, it definitely came up in the > discussion that this was a prerequisite to doing XA properly. It > might not be forcibly necessary in the strictest sense, but 2PC is > certainly one of the normal means for synchronizing distributed > transactions... I didn't realise that the 2PC we have implemented was not XA. That's bad news. To most people they are the same thing, so I foresee some fairly poor feedback. It is my understanding that an XA interface was required to interface correctly with transaction managers. AFAIK XA is an interface that JDBC/JTA provides a mapping for, but they are different things. Who knows the full info on this? Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: