On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Patrick Welche wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:49:30PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > if we are talking two computers sitting next to each other on a switch,
> >> > you'd expect those to be low ... but if you were talking about two
> >> > seperate geographical locations (and yes, I realize you are adding lag to
> >> > the mix with waiting for responses), you'd expect those #s to rise ...
> >>
> >> Which I thought was the whole point of using a group communication
> >> protocol such as spread in postgresql-r. It seemed solved there...
> >
> > Right, but I think we want to try to do two-phase commit without
> > spread. Spread seems overkill for this usage.
>
> Is there some big demerit to _having_ that "overkill"? If there is no
> major price to pay, then I don't see why it isn't reasonable to simply
> say "Sure, we'll use that!"
Reliance on a third party library to be installed to provide the
functionality ... if it were meant as an "add on" instead of "standard
feature", then sure ...