Tom Lane wrote: > [ Shrug... ] I remain of the opinion that 2PC is a solution in search > of a problem, because it does not solve the single point of failure > issue (just moves same from the database to the 2PC controller). > But some people want it anyway, and they aren't going to be satisfied > that we are an "enterprise grade" database until we can check off this > particular bullet point. As long as the implementation doesn't impose > any significant costs when not being used (which AFAICS Heikki's method > doesn't), I think we gotta hold our noses and do it.
I thought the primary reason for having 2PC is to be able to participate in a heterogenous transaction, e.g. with a non-Postgres database/other types of resource managers? 2PC is mostly about how to make these cross-RM transactions [appear] atomic. Redundancy is not covered by 2PC protocol. -- dave ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match