| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Feng Tian <ftian(at)vitessedata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FDW: should GetFdwRoutine be called when drop table? |
| Date: | 2016-02-19 20:13:14 |
| Message-ID: | 26875.1455912794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-02-19 14:18:19 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2/19/16 12:21 PM, Feng Tian wrote:
>>> I have an fdw that each foreign table will acquire some persisted resource.
>> But foreign data wrappers are meant to be wrappers around data managed
>> elsewhere, not their own storage managers (although that is clearly
>> tempting), so there might well be other places where this breaks down.
> Sounds like even a BEGIN;DROP TABLE foo;ROLLBACK; will break this
> approach.
Yes, that's exactly the problem: you'd need some sort of atomic commit
mechanism to make this work safely.
It's possible we could give FDWs a bunch of hooks that would let them
manage post-commit cleanup the same way smgr does, but it's a far larger
project than it might have seemed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-02-19 20:20:01 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-19 20:09:58 | Re: pg_ctl promote wait |