Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I don't see why would my patch cause inconsistencies. It can
> cause dangling PREPAREd transactions and I have already
> acknowledged that fact.
>
> Am I missing something?
To me that is the big problem. Where I have run into ad hoc
distributed transaction managers it has usually been because a
crash left prepared transactions dangling, without cleaning them up
when the transaction manager was restarted. This tends to wreak
havoc one way or another.
If we are going to include a distributed transaction manager with
PostgreSQL, it *must* persist enough information about the
transaction ID and where it is used in a way that will survive a
subsequent crash before beginning the PREPARE on any of the
systems. After all nodes are PREPAREd it must flag that persisted
data to indicate that it is now at a point where ROLLBACK is no
longer an option. Only then can it start committing the prepared
transactions. After the last node is committed it can clear this
information. On start-up the distributed transaction manager must
check for any distributed transactions left "in progress" and
commit or rollback based on the preceding; doing retries
indefinitely until it succeeds or is told to stop.
Doing this incompletely (i.e., not identifying and correctly
handling the various failure modes) is IMO far worse than not
attempting it. If we could build in something that did this
completely and well, that would be a cool selling point; but let's
not gloss over the difficulties. We must recognize how big a
problem it would be to include a low-quality implementation.
Also, as previously mentioned, it must behave in some reasonable
way if a database is not configured to support 2PC, especially
since 2PC is off by default in PostgreSQL.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company