| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Date: | 2003-06-23 05:06:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20030623020445.S95856@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It takes itself offline and you need to resync it later??
Hrmmm, I see Tom's point (I think!) ... but what if, for instance, the
co-ordinator crashes? From the subordinates point of view, it has the
complete transaction to commit, but the co-ordinator has gone down without
telling it to do so ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-23 05:18:26 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-06-23 05:03:57 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |