Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > Yes. I don't think that 2PC is a solution for robustness in face of
>> > network failure. It's too slow, to begin with. Some sort of
>> > multi-master system is very desirable for network failures, &c., but
>> > I don't think anybody does active/hot standby with 2PC any more; the
>> > performance is too bad.
>>
>> I'm tired of this kind of "2PC is too slow" arguments. I think
>> Satoshi, the only guy who made a trial implementation of 2PC for
>> PostgreSQL, has already showed that 2PC is not that slow.
>
> Agreed. Let's get it into 7.5 and see it in action. If we need to
> adjust it, we can, but right now, we need something for distributed
> transactions, and this seems like the logical direction.
>
Are you guy's kidding or what?
2PC is not too slow in normal operations when everything is purring like
little kittens and you're just wasting your excess bandwidth on it. The
point is that it behaves horrible and like a dirty backstreet cat at the
time when things go wrong ... basically it's a neat thing to have, but
from the second you need it it becomes useless.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #