Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C87A63258E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:54:07 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 36887-03
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:53:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-fx0-f223.google.com (mail-fx0-f223.google.com
	[209.85.220.223])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C9963230D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:53:56 -0400 (AST)
Received: by fxm23 with SMTP id 23so1689882fxm.3
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.3.20 with SMTP id f20mr1853750mui.95.1268430834605;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.30.143] (204.11.227.33.static.etheric.net
	[204.11.227.33])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm7117369muf.36.2010.03.12.13.53.51
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Is DBLINK transactional
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: elias ghanem <e.ghanem@acteos.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <b42b73151003120907n1f977887y6132a564af9260b3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201003121524.o2CFOD26012586@relay-ext.ornis.com>
	<b42b73151003120907n1f977887y6132a564af9260b3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:54:17 -0800
Message-Id: <1268430857.32299.11.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201003/129
X-Sequence-Number: 37954

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 committing the remote and the local you can get
> in trouble.  The chances of this are extremely remote though.

If you want a better guarantee than that, consider using 2PC.

The problem with things that are "extremely remote" possibilities are
that they tend to be less remote than we expect ;)

Regards,
	Jeff Davis