Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> ... You can make this work, but the resource costs >>> are steep. > >> So, after 'n' seconds of waiting, we abandon the slave and the slave >> abandons the master. > > [itch...] But you surely cannot guarantee that the slave and the master > time out at exactly the same femtosecond. What happens when the comm > link comes back online just when one has timed out and the other not? > (Hint: in either order, it ain't good. Double plus ungood if, say, the > comm link manages to deliver the master's "commit confirm" message a > little bit after the master has timed out and decided to abort after all.) > > In my book, timeout-based solutions to this kind of problem are certain > disasters. > > regards, tom lane
What do commercial databases do about 2PC or other multi-master solutions? You've done a good job of convincing me that it's unreliable no matter what (through your posts on this topic over a long time). However, I would think that something like Oracle or DB2 have some kind of answer for multi-master, and I'm curious what it is. If they don't, is it reasonable to make a test case that leaves their database inconsistent or hanging? I can (probably) get access to a SQL Server system to run some tests, if someone is interested. regards, jeff davis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])