cr...@postnewspapers.com.au (Craig Ringer) writes:
On 13/03/2010 5:54 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:07 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
of course. You can always explicitly open a transaction on the remote
side over dblink, do work, and commit it at the last possible moment.
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 20:10 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 13/03/2010 5:54 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:07 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
of course. You can always explicitly open a transaction on the remote
side over dblink, do work, and commit it at the last possible
On 13/03/2010 5:54 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:07 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
of course. You can always explicitly open a transaction on the remote
side over dblink, do work, and commit it at the last possible moment.
Your transactions aren't perfectly synchronized...if you
Hi,
I am using dblink to read data from a remote data base, insert these data in
the local database, update the red data in the remote database then continue
to do some other work on the local database in the same transaction.
My question is : Is db link transactional; If the local transaction
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM, elias ghanem e.gha...@acteos.com wrote:
Hi,
I am using dblink to read data from a remote data base, insert these data in
the local database, update the red data in the remote database then continue
to do some other work on the local database in the same
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:07 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
of course. You can always explicitly open a transaction on the remote
side over dblink, do work, and commit it at the last possible moment.
Your transactions aren't perfectly synchronized...if you crash in the
precise moment between
