On 2/9/2007 2:19 PM, Andrew Hammond wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive. It
> > sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
> > for us.
> Thank you.
My intuition is that it might be possible to prove that _nothing_ can
provide guaranteed ordering when there is disconnected operation.
As a matter of physics, for two events happening outside of the event
horizon of each other, the question which happened first is pointless.
However, I think that the clock based ordering Jan has described could
provide _probable_ ordering under disconnected operation. I can see
three variables in the equation that would determine the probability
of correctness for the ordering.
That precisely is the intended functionality. And I can exactly describe
when two conflicting actions will result in the "wrong" row to persist.
This will happen when the second update to the logically same row will
be performed on the server with the Lamport timestamp lagging behind by
more than the time between the two conflicting commits. Example: User
fills out a form, submits, hits back button, corrects input and submits
again within 3 seconds. Load balancing sends both requests to different
servers and the first server is 3.0001 seconds ahead ... the users typo
will be the winner.
My Lamport timestamp conflict resolution will not be able to solve this
problem. However, when this happens, one thing is guaranteed. The update
from the second server, arriving on the first for replication will be
ignored because a locally generated row is newer. This fact can be used
as an indicator that there is a possible conflict that was resolved
using the wrong data (business process wise). All nodes in the cluster
will end up using the same wrong row, so at least they are consistently
wrong. Nevertheless, being able to identify possible problem cases this
way will allow to initiate further action including but not limited to
If this is not an acceptable risk for the application, other resolution
methods will be needed. But I think in many cases, this form of default
resolution will be "good enough".
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly