Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL-R

2002-12-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL-R

2002-12-23 Thread Vadim Mikheev
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 slaves.

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL-R

2002-12-21 Thread Darren Johnson
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

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL-R

2002-12-20 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
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