On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:58:48 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zboszor@xxxxx> wrote: >Hi, > >it was a long time I have read this list or written to it. > >Now, I have a question. This blog post was written about 3 years ago: >https://aphyr.com/posts/282-jepsen-postgres > >Basically, it talks about the client AND the server as a system >and if the network is cut between sending COMMIT and >receiving the answer for it, the client has no way to know >whether the transaction was actually committed. > >The client connection may just timeout and a reconnect would >give it a new connection but it cannot pick up its old connection >where it left. So it cannot really know whether the old transaction >was committed or not, possibly without doing expensive queries first. > >Has anything changed on that front? > >There is a 10.0 debate on -hackers. If this problem posed by >the above article is not fixed yet and needs a new wire protocol >to get it fixed, 10.0 would be justified. It isn't going to be fixed ... it is a basic *unsolvable* problem in communication theory that affects coordination in any distributed system. For a simple explanation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals'_Problem >Thanks in advance, >Zoltán Böszörményi George -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
