On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> You're not considering the possibility of a transient communication > >> failure. > > > Can't the master re-send the request after a timeout? > > Not "it can", but "it has to". The master *must* keep hold of that > request forever (or until the slave responds, or until we reconfigure > the system not to consider that slave valid anymore). Similarly, the > slave cannot forget the maybe-committed transaction on pain of not being > a valid slave anymore. Hrmmmm ... is there no way of having part of the protocol being a message sent back that its a valid/invalid slave? ie. slave has an uncommitted transaction, never hears back from master to actually do the commit, so after x-secs * y-retries any messages it does try to send to the master have a bit flag set to 'invalid'? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
