Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date: 2012-02-20 23:07:58
Message-ID: CAEZqfEcvmUHSY5jGGrQ+bym+wjgHYX26z6572hhB0eCf=uq56g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2012/02/21 0:58 "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>:
>
> "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
>
> > I read the example carefully, and it seems to me that it is
> > necessary for the read-only transaction (T3)v to be SERIALIZABLE so
> > that T1 is aborted and the state that T3 saw remains valid.
>
> Correct.
Hm, agreed that isolation levels < REPEATABLE READ are not sufficient for
pgsql_fdw's usage.  I'll examine the example and fix pgsql_fdw.

Thanks.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-02-20 23:09:01
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-20 23:02:37
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group