FYI, I think we are going to need two-phase commit, at least to
implement distributed transactions. I will add it to the TODO list.
---
Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~kemme/papers/vldb00.html
>
> Thanks
> > It seems that locking tuples via LockTable at Phase 1 is not
> > required anymore, right?
>
> We haven't put those hooks in yet, so the current version is master/slave.
So, you are not going to use any LockTable in Phase 1 on master right
now but you still need some LockTable in Phase 3 on sla
Next, pg-r was originally based on 6.4, so what was changed for
current pg versions when MV is used for CC? It seems that locking
tuples via LockTable at Phase 1 is not required anymore, right?
We haven't put those hooks in yet, so the current version is master/slave.
Upon receiving local
> http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~kemme/papers/vldb00.html
Thanks for the link, Darren, I think everyone interested
in discussion should read it.
First, I like approach. Second, I don't understand why
ppl oppose pg-r & 2pc. 2pc is just simple protocol to
perform distributed commits *after* distributed co
