maybe because i assume too much?

my assumption, however, would be that if, as stated, firebird doesn't consider shadow files as
being under two-phase-commit, then it's not going to care if both writes actually happen before
telling the client that everything's okay, and marking the transaction as committed in the main
database. will it rollback the main db if it can't write to the shadow? does it postpone writing to
the shadow until it's got lots of stuff waiting? i don't know.

on the other hand, it would be really sad if firebird couldn't write to the shadow, but still
committed ... and never fixed the glitch (leading to an out-of-sync shadow file.) it seems fairly
necessary for it to guarantee that it wrote to the shadow. maybe i assume too much about "not using
two-phase commit" -- maybe it only means that it uses a different logic?

i'll just wait for people who -do- know to tell me what'll happen.

-philip

> Why do you think that commit() will wait for acknowledging write to database (ramdrive)
> but not to shadow (disk) ?
>
> Ivan
> http://www.volny.cz/iprenosil/interbase