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!"
After all, PostgreSQL is set up to do _everything_ inside
transactions, even though there are some actions you might take that
don't forcibly need to be transactional. That's overkill, and nobody
(well, barring fans of Certain Other Databases) complains that it's
overkill.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)