From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
Date: | 2011-03-03 06:13:28 |
Message-ID: | 1299132808.1974.6635.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 13:35 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > To achieve the effect Fujii is looking for, we would have to silently drop
> > the connection. That would correctly leave the client not knowing whether
> > the transaction committed or not.
>
> Yeah, this seems to make more sense.
How do you propose we do that?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-03 07:00:45 | Re: Quick Extensions Question |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-03-03 04:35:47 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |