On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Brian Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > On Aug 14, 2008, at 7:31 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> 4) Have a 2-phase commit transaction marshaller within the kernel which >> would be a no-op when only on a single server or a pushdown when only a >> single storage engine is used. > > This is the same as my option 1 for me, but it would mean leaving the > transaction coordinator to a lead engine, not developing an upper layer one. > It would mean only one very optimized transaction engine per transaction, > but I can live with that.
Yeah. I don't have much use for more than one engine in each broad category (transactional, logging, etc). No matter how good they are, two engines means lots and lots of extra complexity from a development standpoint alone. I don't think this is even a mild issue, let alone a big limitation. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
