| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Date: | 2003-06-23 04:06:36 |
| Message-ID: | 16168.1056341196@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> writes:
> I'm not sure if I understand Tom's beef - I think he is concerned
> about what happens if a subordinate does not respond to a prepare
> message. I would assume that the co-ordinator would not let the commit
> go through until it has received confirmations from every
> subordinate.
No. I want to know what the subordinate does when it's promised to
commit and the co-ordinator never responds. AFAICS the subordinate
is screwed --- it can't commit, and it can't abort, and it can't expect
to make progress indefinitely on other work while it's holding locks
for the not-quite-committed transaction.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-06-23 04:13:37 | Re: O_DIRECT in freebsd |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-23 04:02:33 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |