(B
(BHiroshi Inoue wrote:
(B>
(B> Tom Lane wrote:
(B> >
(B> > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(B> > > The simplest senario(though there could be varations) is
(B> >
(B> > > [At participant(master)'s side]
(B> > > Because the commit operations is done, does nothing.
(B> >
(B> > > [At coordinator(slave)' side]
(B> > > 1) After a while
(B> > > 2) re-establish the communication path between the
(B> > > partcipant(master)'s TM.
(B> > > 3) resend the "commit requeset" to the participant's TM.
(B> > > 1)2)3) would be repeated until the coordinator receives
(B> > > the "commit ok" message from the partcipant.
(B> >
(B> > [ scratches head ] I think you are using the terms "master" and "slave"
(B> > oppositely than I would.
(B>
(B> Oops my mistake, sorry.
(B> But is it 2-phase commit protocol in the first place ?
(B
(BThat is, in your exmaple below
(B
(B Example:
(B
(B Master Slave
(B ------ -----
(B commit ready-->
(B <--OK
(B commit done->XX
(B
(Bis the "commit done" message needed ?
(B
(Bregards,
(BHiroshi Inoue
(B http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
(B
(B---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
(BTIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
(B
(B http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
