mirror of
https://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git
synced 2024-11-27 07:21:09 +08:00
Add.
This commit is contained in:
Bruce Momjian
parent
a05eae029a
commit
8cb2c013b6
@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 10:01:18 1999
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA11295
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:01:17 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id KAA20310 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:39:18 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id KAA20310 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:39:18 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA61760;
|
||||
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:31:13 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 18:31:03 1999
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA26244
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:31:02 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id TAA12730 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:30:05 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id TAA12730 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:30:05 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA57851;
|
||||
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:23:31 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 21:31:10 1999
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA02578
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:31:09 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id WAA16641 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:18:56 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id WAA16641 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:18:56 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA89135;
|
||||
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:11:12 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sun Dec 26 08:31:09 1999
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA17976
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:31:07 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id JAA23337 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:28:36 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id JAA23337 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:28:36 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA90738;
|
||||
Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:21:58 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -909,7 +909,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Thu Dec 30 08:01:09 1999
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA10317
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:01:08 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id IAA02365 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:37:10 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id IAA02365 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:37:10 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA87902;
|
||||
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:34:22 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org Sun Jan 2 23:01:38 2000
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA16274
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:01:28 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id XAA02655 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:45:55 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id XAA02655 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:45:55 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13828;
|
||||
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:40:47 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 4 10:31:01 2000
|
||||
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA17522
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:31:00 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id LAA01541 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:27:30 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id LAA01541 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:27:30 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
|
||||
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09992;
|
||||
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:18:07 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
@ -1728,3 +1728,180 @@ Betreff: [HACKERS] failing over with postgresql
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3662@postgresql.org Tue Jan 23 16:23:34 2001
|
||||
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA04456
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:23:34 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0NLKf004705;
|
||||
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:20:41 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3662@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from sectorbase2.sectorbase.com ([208.48.122.131])
|
||||
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0NLAe003753
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:10:40 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
(envelope-from vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM)
|
||||
Received: by sectorbase2.sectorbase.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
|
||||
id <DG1W4Q8F>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:49:07 -0800
|
||||
Message-ID: <8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32AF@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com>
|
||||
From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
|
||||
To: "'dom@idealx.com'" <dom@idealx.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
|
||||
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd)
|
||||
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:10:34 -0800
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
|
||||
Content-Type: text/plain;
|
||||
charset="iso-8859-1"
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: ORr
|
||||
|
||||
> I had thought that the pre-commit information could be stored in an
|
||||
> auxiliary table by the middleware program ; we would then have
|
||||
> to re-implement some sort of higher-level WAL (I thought of the list
|
||||
> of the commands performed in the current transaction, with a sequence
|
||||
> number for each of them that would guarantee correct ordering between
|
||||
> concurrent transactions in case of a REDO). But I fear I am missing
|
||||
|
||||
This wouldn't work for READ COMMITTED isolation level.
|
||||
But why do you want to log commands into WAL where each modification
|
||||
is already logged in, hm, correct order?
|
||||
Well, it has sense if you're looking for async replication but
|
||||
you need not in two-phase commit for this and should aware about
|
||||
problems with READ COMMITTED isolevel.
|
||||
|
||||
Back to two-phase commit - it's easiest part of work required for
|
||||
distributed transaction processing.
|
||||
Currently we place single commit record to log and transaction is
|
||||
committed when this record (and so all other transaction records)
|
||||
is on disk.
|
||||
Two-phase commit:
|
||||
|
||||
1. For 1st phase we'll place into log "prepared-to-commit" record
|
||||
and this phase will be accomplished after record is flushed on disk.
|
||||
At this point transaction may be committed at any time because of
|
||||
all its modifications are logged. But it still may be rolled back
|
||||
if this phase failed on other sites of distributed system.
|
||||
|
||||
2. When all sites are prepared to commit we'll place "committed"
|
||||
record into log. No need to flush it because of in the event of
|
||||
crash for all "prepared" transactions recoverer will have to
|
||||
communicate other sites to know their statuses anyway.
|
||||
|
||||
That's all! It is really hard to implement distributed lock- and
|
||||
communication- managers but there is no problem with logging two
|
||||
records instead of one. Period.
|
||||
|
||||
Vadim
|
||||
|
||||
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3665@postgresql.org Tue Jan 23 17:05:26 2001
|
||||
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA05972
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:05:24 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0NM31008120;
|
||||
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:03:01 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3665@postgresql.org)
|
||||
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.navpoint.com [162.33.245.46])
|
||||
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0NLsU007188
|
||||
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:54:30 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
|
||||
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA05300;
|
||||
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:53:53 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
|
||||
Message-Id: <200101232153.QAA05300@candle.pha.pa.us>
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd)
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32AF@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com>
|
||||
"from Mikheev, Vadim at Jan 23, 2001 01:10:34 pm"
|
||||
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
|
||||
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:53:53 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
CC: "'dom@idealx.com'" <dom@idealx.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
|
||||
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL77 (25)]
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
||||
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
|
||||
Precedence: bulk
|
||||
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||
Status: OR
|
||||
|
||||
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
|
||||
> > I had thought that the pre-commit information could be stored in an
|
||||
> > auxiliary table by the middleware program ; we would then have
|
||||
> > to re-implement some sort of higher-level WAL (I thought of the list
|
||||
> > of the commands performed in the current transaction, with a sequence
|
||||
> > number for each of them that would guarantee correct ordering between
|
||||
> > concurrent transactions in case of a REDO). But I fear I am missing
|
||||
>
|
||||
> This wouldn't work for READ COMMITTED isolation level.
|
||||
> But why do you want to log commands into WAL where each modification
|
||||
> is already logged in, hm, correct order?
|
||||
> Well, it has sense if you're looking for async replication but
|
||||
> you need not in two-phase commit for this and should aware about
|
||||
> problems with READ COMMITTED isolevel.
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
||||
I believe the issue here is that while SERIALIZABLE ISOLATION means all
|
||||
queries can be run serially, our default is READ COMMITTED, meaning that
|
||||
open transactions see committed transactions, even if the transaction
|
||||
committed after our transaction started. (FYI, see my chapter on
|
||||
transactions for help, http://www.postgresql.org/docs/awbook.html.)
|
||||
|
||||
To do higher-level WAL, you would have to record not only the queries,
|
||||
but the other queries that were committed at the start of each command
|
||||
in your transaction.
|
||||
|
||||
Ideally, you could number every commit by its XID your log, and then
|
||||
when processing the query, pass the "committed" transaction ids that
|
||||
were visible at the time each command began.
|
||||
|
||||
In other words, you can replay the queries in transaction commit order,
|
||||
except that you have to have some transactions committed at specific
|
||||
points while other transactions are open, i.e.:
|
||||
|
||||
XID Open XIDS Query
|
||||
500 UPDATE t SET col = 3;
|
||||
501 500 BEGIN;
|
||||
501 500 UPDATE t SET col = 4;
|
||||
501 UPDATE t SET col = 5;
|
||||
501 COMMIT;
|
||||
|
||||
This is a silly example, but it shows that 500 must commit after the
|
||||
first command in transaction 501, but before the second command in the
|
||||
transaction. This is because UPDATE t SET col = 5 actually sees the
|
||||
changes made by transaction 500 in READ COMMITTED isolation level.
|
||||
|
||||
I am not advocating this. I think WAL is a better choice. I just
|
||||
wanted to outline how replaying the queries in commit order is
|
||||
insufficient.
|
||||
|
||||
> Back to two-phase commit - it's easiest part of work required for
|
||||
> distributed transaction processing.
|
||||
> Currently we place single commit record to log and transaction is
|
||||
> committed when this record (and so all other transaction records)
|
||||
> is on disk.
|
||||
> Two-phase commit:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> 1. For 1st phase we'll place into log "prepared-to-commit" record
|
||||
> and this phase will be accomplished after record is flushed on disk.
|
||||
> At this point transaction may be committed at any time because of
|
||||
> all its modifications are logged. But it still may be rolled back
|
||||
> if this phase failed on other sites of distributed system.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> 2. When all sites are prepared to commit we'll place "committed"
|
||||
> record into log. No need to flush it because of in the event of
|
||||
> crash for all "prepared" transactions recoverer will have to
|
||||
> communicate other sites to know their statuses anyway.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> That's all! It is really hard to implement distributed lock- and
|
||||
> communication- managers but there is no problem with logging two
|
||||
> records instead of one. Period.
|
||||
|
||||
Great.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
--
|
||||
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
|
||||
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
|
||||
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
|
||||
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user