
> > > > The simplest senario(though there could be varations) is
> > >
> > > > [At participant(master)'s side]
> > > >   Because the commit operations is done, does nothing.
> > >
> > > > [At coordinator(slave)' side]
> > > >    1) After a while
> > > >    2) re-establish the communication path between the
> > > >       partcipant(master)'s TM.
> > > >    3) resend the "commit requeset" to the participant's TM.
> > > >   1)2)3) would be repeated until the coordinator receives
> > > >   the "commit ok" message from the partcipant.
> > >
> > > [ scratches head ] I think you are using the terms "master" and "slave"
> > > oppositely than I would.
> > 
> > Oops my mistake, sorry.
> > But is it 2-phase commit protocol in the first place ?
> 
> That is, in your exmaple below
> 
>  Example:
> 
>         Master          Slave
>         ------          -----
>         commit ready-->

This is the commit for phase 1. This commit is allowed to return all 
sorts of errors, like violated deferred checks, out of diskspace, ...

>                         <--OK
>         commit done->XX

This is commit for phase 2, the slave *must* answer with "success"
in all but hardware failure cases. (Note that instead the master could 
instead send rollback, e.g. because some other slave aborted)

> is the "commit done" message needed ?

So, yes this is needed.

Andreas

Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:38:56 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: 2-phase commit
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [mailto:ZeugswetterA@spardat.at] 
> > 
> >  Example:
> > 
> >         Master          Slave
> >         ------          -----
> >         commit ready-->
> 
> This is the commit for phase 1. This commit is allowed to return all 
> sorts of errors, like violated deferred checks, out of diskspace, ...
> 
> >                         <--OK
> >         commit done->XX
> 
> This is commit for phase 2, the slave *must* answer with "success"
> in all but hardware failure cases. (Note that instead the 
> master could 
> instead send rollback, e.g. because some other slave aborted)
> 
> > is the "commit done" message needed ?
> 
> So, yes this is needed

Thanks.
I misunderstood that the "commit done" message is the last response from
the participant to the coordinator. I missed the "OK" message before it.
Where were my eyes ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue


Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:29:56 +0900
"Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Re: 2-phase commit