On 4 January 2016 at 20:09, Riley Berton wrote:
> The conflict on the "thingy" table has resulted in node2 winning based
> on last_update wins default resolution. However, both inserts have
> applied. My expectation is that the entire TX applies or does not
> apply. This expectation is clearl
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 5 January 2016 at 04:09, Riley Berton wrote:
>
>>
>> The conflict on the "thingy" table has resulted in node2 winning based
>> on last_update wins default resolution. However, both inserts have
>> applied. My expectation is that the entire TX applies or does not
>> ap
On 5 January 2016 at 04:09, Riley Berton wrote:
>
> The conflict on the "thingy" table has resulted in node2 winning based
> on last_update wins default resolution. However, both inserts have
> applied. My expectation is that the entire TX applies or does not
> apply. This expectation is clear
Em 05/01/2016 11:42, Riley Berton escreveu:
Edson Richter writes:
BTW, I'm also looking for a "synchronous multi-master" solution... If
you find one, please share :-)
The only solution I've found so far is a middleware that is close, the
C-Jdbc/Sequoia, which seems not being actively maintaine
Edson Richter writes:
> BTW, I'm also looking for a "synchronous multi-master" solution... If
> you find one, please share :-)
> The only solution I've found so far is a middleware that is close, the
> C-Jdbc/Sequoia, which seems not being actively maintained for a while
> now.
See Postgres-R
BTW, I'm also looking for a "synchronous multi-master" solution... If
you find one, please share :-)
The only solution I've found so far is a middleware that is close, the
C-Jdbc/Sequoia, which seems not being actively maintained for a while now.
Regards,
Edson
Atenciosamente,
Edson Carlos E
I think this is the nature of "async multi master"...
IMHO, It would be necessary to be "sync multi master" (with two-phase
commit?) to get the behavior you expect.
Atenciosamente,
Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter
Em 04/01/2016 18:09, Riley Berton escreveu:
I have been experimenting with BDR a
I have been experimenting with BDR and have a question about how BDR
interacts with transactions.
bdrdemo=# create table thingy (id INT, value TEXT, PRIMARY KEY(id));
CREATE TABLE
bdrdemo=# create table tx_log(id INT, msg TEXT, PRIMARY KEY(id));
CREATE TABLE
bdrdemo=# insert into thingy (id, value
